Who Are We? Beyond Earth at the Intersection of Bioscience and Religion

From the December 16, 2022 issue of the Transformational Times

Who Are We? Beyond Earth at the Intersection of Bioscience and Religion

Annie Friedrich, PhD and Ryan Spellecy, PhD

In December 2022, the Medical College of Wisconsin, Marquette University, and Viterbo University hosted its first seminar on ‘Big Questions’ at the intersection of bioscience and religion. A perhaps unlikely pairing of a theologian and an astronomer explored what it means for humans to be unique in the vastness of the universe…

A theologian and an astronomer walk into a room…while this may sound like the beginning of a joke, this was the scene on December 5, 2022, for the inaugural session of a new seminar series called "Big Questions," which explores the intersection between bioscience and religion. Moderated by MCW’s Aasim Padela, MD, this series aims to foster interdisciplinary humble and fruitful dialogue, build bridges of understanding, and spark curiosity at the juncture of religion and science. The series seeks to replace the question of science or religion with “where do science and religion find common ground?”

More than 50 MCW faculty, staff, medical students, and community members heard from Astronomer Jennifer Wiseman, PhD and theologian Jonathan Crane, PhD, MPhil, MA. Dr. Wiseman is the Emeritus Director of the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr Crane is the Raymond F. Schinazi Scholar of Bioethics and Jewish Thought at the Ethics Center, and Professor of Medicine and Religion at Emory University.

The question that began this series is a simple one: if there is life on other planets, what does that mean for human significance? Dr. Wiseman explored this question in light of astronomical discoveries, while Dr. Crane offered a Jewish perspective on the question of human uniqueness in the context of life beyond earth. While these perspectives may seem to be at odds, Drs. Wiseman and Crane had more in common than one might think, which is perhaps the point of interdisciplinary dialogues such as these.

In the vastness of the universe, are humans significant?

As Dr. Wiseman approached the podium, the lights were dimmed as a breathtaking photo of thousands of stars filled the screen. Thanks to technology like the Hubble Telescope, stars are no longer just small pinpricks of light; the image on the screen showed bright flashes of red, blue, and yellow. According to Dr. Wiseman, there are more than 200 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy alone, which may lead one to feel small and insignificant.

Astronomer Carl Sagan may sum up this feeling of insignificance: “Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” And yet, Dr. Wiseman did not find this insignificance or smallness deterministic or fatalistic. Rather, she saw this as an opportunity to be inspired. Space exploration provides an invitation to explore what we don’t yet know or have not yet encountered, and Dr. Wiseman accepts that invitation gladly.

Betzelem Elohim: A Jewish perspective on human uniqueness

At the end of her remarks, Dr. Wiseman offered a counter to Dr. Sagan’s quote in Psalm 8:3-4 which says, “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is the man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” Dr. Crane picked up the Psalms, as well, acknowledging that Jewish tradition recognizes that things outside of this earth are significant because God created them.

Yet, their significance is not a threat to our own. Humans are particularly unique, according to Dr. Crane, because humans are betzelem Elohim, made in the image of God. But what if other beings who are also “made in the image of God” are discovered? Would human uniqueness and superiority fail? We may not be the exclusive owners of betzelem Elohim, but we were given revelation, and Dr. Crane notes that this dialogue with God is what matters.

The significance of human significance

While questions of human uniqueness and significance are surely important questions worthy of exploration for their own sake, one might well be skeptical of the importance of these questions when our pediatric hospital is at—or over—capacity due to a triple threat of COVID, RSV, and influenza. When pressing deadlines or clinical responsibilities overwhelm, taking time for philosophical reflection may seem trivial at best or irresponsible at worst.

But, as Dr. Crane argued, being “made in the image of God” provides a certain comfort that allows us to “take risks” about science, healthcare, and the pursuit of knowledge. Reflecting on human significance—whether from a religious or scientific perspective—encourages us to push forward in our research endeavors and to take risks in our teaching as we develop a new curriculum and employ teaching techniques and modalities that may stretch us. As we seek to transform medical education, surely, we could all use comfort and the permission to take risks, as transformation does not come without challenges and risks.

Perhaps some of us are already confident of human significance. When a learner comes to us for help, overwhelmed by the subject matter or stresses of life, we take time to listen because we know they are unique and significant. If we did not believe in human significance and the intrinsic value of human beings, perhaps we would not have chosen this field in the first place.

Yet this affirmation of human significance, whether from a scientific or religious perspective, reminds us to approach our work with a spirit of service and compassion that can transform the practice of medicine, medical education, and the biomedical sciences.

Annie Friedrich, PhD, HEC-C is an Assistant Professor of Bioethics and Medical Humanities in the Institute for Health and Equity at MCW.

Ryan Spellecy, PhD, is the Ursula von der Ruhr Chair in Bioethics and Professor of Bioethics and Medical Humanities, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, at MCW.

What Makes an Exemplary Writing Mentor?

From the April 28, 2023 issue of the Transformational Times

What Makes an Exemplary Writing Mentor? 

 

William Henk, EdD 

 

Dr. Henk, the former Dean of the College of Education at Marquette University, explores what matters most for effective mentoring of writers seeking publication of their scholarly work. Patience and consideration of a writer’s vulnerability, in tandem with their need for candor, are all a part of it. But there’s much more... 

 

Success in writing for professional publication requires a complex set of skills and dispositions. Those who must publish as a job expectation, especially emerging scholars, can find the process extremely daunting (Dixon, 2001). It’s no wonder.  

 

Oftentimes, their graduate programs provide little to no mentoring in writing for refereed forums (Barrett, Mazerolle, & Nottingham, 2017). These forums utilize a unique textual genre that is difficult to master, and engaging with the journal review process itself carries emotional risks. How so?  

 

Authors invest themselves deeply in their work, making notable sacrifices along the way. They submit manuscripts for review, laying bare their egos to the prospect of rejection -- a professional gut punch. Then they wait months in hopeful suspense for a definitive verdict, aware that their treasured work is undergoing intense scrutiny.  

 

With so much uncertainty, and as false starts mount, the process can give rise to a range of negative feelings including disappointment, discouragement, frustration, anxiety, anger, despair, denial, embarrassment, and even impostor syndrome (Day, 2011). Consequently, only accepted manuscripts can pre-empt or remedy these emotions, and more fundamentally, advance an author’s scholarship.  

 

To those ends, an exemplary writing mentor can be instructive – from identifying a publishable idea and arguing for it, to word choice, paragraph structure and cohesion, transitions, ideational flow, and overall coherence.  

 

A necessary, but insufficient condition 

 

Even the most prolific scholars have endured at least some of the regrettable emotions associated with the pursuit of publication, a journey rooted in trial and error and baptism by fire. 

 

Those who succeed do so largely of their own volition through lessons learned the hard way (Keen, 2007). Their success derives from a range of positive character strengths such as perseverance, curiosity, creativity, judgment, perspective, self-regulation, and love of learning, among others.  

 

Over the years, these scholars accumulate keen insights about publishing, both skill and art, as well as the joy and pain. At this career stage, many report pondering a familiar adage—namely, if I knew then what I know now—and conclude that this rite of passage would have been kinder if that was the case.    

 

On the face of it, senior scholars figure to make robust mentors for aspiring authors. Who better to advise protégés on writing for publication than those who have enjoyed significant success in their own right? In that sense, publication productivity almost certainly qualifies as a necessary condition for expert mentoring. The cognitive guidance a mentor gives can drive writing improvement, and if they bring experience as journal reviewers or editors to mentoring, then all the better.  

  

But is scholarly productivity a sufficient condition for mentoring writing? 

 

In fact, not all accomplished writers thrive in the mentor role. The important work of helping inexperienced colleagues share their ideas with a wider audience somehow falls outside their interests or forte. While most senior scholars contribute to their fields in various meaningful ways, mentoring may not be one of them. In some cases, it’s a matter of an unwillingness to assist; in others, it’s a question of unavailability or other limits on capacity.  

 

At any rate, although these scholars clearly possess both keen powers of insight and the publication wisdom to benefit mentees’ writing, they may lack other key attributes associated with exemplary mentoring. 

 

The exemplary writing mentor 

 

Whether you’re searching for an exemplary writing mentor or are an accomplished professional who seeks to become one, the question remains the same, “What additional attributes, beyond promoting cognitive clarity, warrant consideration?”   

 

In many respects, the affective nature of the relationship sets a ceiling on the effectiveness of a writing mentor/mentee match. The model mentor situates the relationship around care for their mentees. The commitment to be present to them is firm and elevates accessibility to a priority. When it comes to individual writing consultations, these mentors listen respectfully and actively, respond thoughtfully and graciously, and brainstorm when necessary. They instill trust by exercising patience, interacting in considerate ways, acknowledging emotional vulnerability, and avoiding judgmental behavior.      

 

Ideally, writing mentors are trustworthy, as well as sufficiently enthusiastic and empathetic. Overall, they are affirming, but not too much so. Whereas effective mentors encourage and support mentees by offering honest and astute advice as constructive feedback, they will explicitly cite a paper’s deal-breaking properties, however awkward that might be for the duo. In short, candor is essential, because anything less disservices the mentee.  

 

In large measure, the way the critiques of written products are delivered often determines the health and trajectory of the mentor/mentee relationship. Most especially when effective mentoring demands major changes to a paper, the criticism should always be directed at the writing itself, never the writer (Lingard &Watling, 2021). And difficult comments should be doled out gingerly, accompanied by reaffirmations of the mentor’s commitment to help.  

 

And lastly, in my estimation, the best writing mentors go beyond supplying incisive feedback and even creating a safe and intimate sanctuary for aspiring authors. They inspire them.  

For further reading:

Day, N. (2011). The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars.  

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(4), 704-718. 

 

Dixon, N. (2001). Writing for publication: A guide for new authors. International 

Journal for Quality in Health Care, 13(5), 417–421. 

 

Keen, A. (2007). Writing for publication: Pressures, barriers, and support strategies.  

Nurse Education Today, 27(5). 382-388.  

 

Lingard, L., & Watling, C. (2021). Story, not study: 30 brief lessons to inspire health researchers as writers. Springer: New York. 

 

William Henk, EdD, is a member of the KINETIC3 Steering Committee in the Kern Institute. He served as Dean of the College of Education at Marquette University from 2004 to 2020. His current work focuses on helping others realize success in writing for publication.