22,212 research outputs found
Thomas Anderson Oral History Interview
No full textMajor Topics Covered: Anderson family involvement with MD Anderson and the Texas medical Center Personal recollections of R. Lee Clark, Ernst Bertner, Charles LeMaistre, John Mendelsohn and other MD Anderson figures The origins of MD Anderson and other Texas Medical Center institutions The formation of the Board of Visitors Physician referrals to MD Anderson, controversy and challenges Growth of MD Anderson and the Texas Medical Centerhttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewsessions/1065/thumbnail.jp
Chapter 03: Connections with MD Anderson and Memories of R. Lee Clark, MD
No full textThe interview begins with Thomas Dunaway Anderson’s recollections of his uncle, Monroe Dunaway Anderson, the founder of the M.D. Anderson foundation and namesake of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The interview continues with a description of the establishment and purpose of the M.D. Anderson Foundation and the growth and development of several recipients of M.D. Anderson’s philanthropy, including the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and the Texas Medical Center. Thomas Anderson’s memories and interactions regarding Dr. Randolph Lee Clark, the first full-time president of what is known today as the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, are recounted as well. A discussion concerning Thomas Anderson’s family contributions associated with the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and the Texas Medical Center ends the interview.https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewchapters/1400/thumbnail.jp
Park City, May 1966. L- R: Tim Heydon, Activities Director; Woody Anderson; Lowell Thomas, holding Lowell Thomas Classic Race trophy.
No full textPhoto taken at Park City, May 1966. L- R: Tim Heydon, Activities Director; Woody Anderson; Lowell Thomas, holding Lowell Thomas Classic Race troph
Progress in marine ecosystem modelling and the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”
No full textModelling methodology, it is argued, is primarily about providing explanations of data which, if sufficiently convincing, provide a basis for prediction and forecasting. Models allow us to synthesise our knowledge and explore its ramifications, leading to insight and discovery. As such, modelling is invaluable to the progress of marine science, the development and implementation of ever more complex models moving in tandem with our expanding knowledge base. It is possible to argue, however, that mathematics can be “unreasonably effective” at describing phenomena, particularly for complex models where there are often many free parameters to tune against limited data. Errors become difficult to pinpoint and correct, and creativity may be stifled as models become entrenched within the prevailing paradigm. Indiscriminately adding layer upon layer of complexity in models may therefore be counter productive, particularly if prediction of future scenarios such as changing climate is the ultimate goal. The inclusion of additional complexity in models is nevertheless desirable, where relevant and practicable. New modelling approaches that are coming to the fore likely hold the key to future progress such as targeting complexity in key species and trophic levels, adaptive parameterisations and the representation of physiological trade-offs, providing the potential to simulate emergent community structure
Chapter 09: Reflections on Dr. Clifton Mountain and Data Collection Roles at MD Anderson
No full textMrs. Hermes begins this chapter with memories of how much she enjoyed working for Dr. Mountain over the course of 25 years. He taught her how to think about data, she explains, and she was listed as an author on a number of publications on lung cancer [see examples below]. She explains that Dr. Mountain left MD Anderson in 1993, but she continued to work freelance for him. She recalls that he set up the first conference on mathematics at MD Anderson, early in his career sometime in the sixties.
Next she comments on how the unique openness of Houston culture fit well with the bold visions that both R. Lee Clark and Eleanor MacDonald held for oncology. She says that her most important work was on Dr. Mountain’s staging system for lung cancer and she explains why staging the disease presented challenges.
She confirms that she was always interested in the implications of basic research for clinical findings. She credits Eleanor MacDonald for helping her to develop her curiosity and questioning style.https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewchapters/2036/thumbnail.jp
Thomas L. Anderson receives the Hamilton Watch Company award
No full textUniversity of Idaho student Thomas L. Anderson receives the Hamilton Watch Company award from President Donald R. Theophilus
Plankton functional type modelling: running before we can walk?
No full textBiogeochemical cycling in marine systems is intimately linked to the activity of specific plankton functional types (PFTs) such as diatoms, coccolithophores and nitrogen fixers, thereby providing a focus for contemporary modelling studies. Incorporating extra complexity beyond simple nutrient-phytoplankton-zooplankton-detritus (NPZD) models is, however, fraught with difficulties: poorly understood ecology; lack of data; aggregating diversity within functional groups into meaningful state variables and constants; sensitivity of output to the parameterizations in question and their physical and chemical environment. Although regional models addressing the seasonal succession of plankton types have achieved some degree of success, predicted distributions of PFTs in global biogeochemical models have thus far been less than convincing. While the continued articulation of detail in ecosystem models is surely the way forward, I argue that this can only be so with due care and attention to the formulations employed and a healthy dose of scepticism regarding model outcomes. Future directions should emphasize building up complexity gradually, objective assessment of the resulting parameterizations, and variety in approach such as the use of empirical alternatives to the fully dynamic representation of PFTs in models
Carbon cycling and POC turnover in the mesopelagic zone of the ocean: Insights from a simple model
No full textCarbon budgets of the mesopelagic zone are poorly constrained, highlighting our lack of understanding of the biota that inhabit this environment and their role in the cycling and sequestering of carbon in the deep ocean. A simple food web model of the mesopelagic zone is presented that traces the turnover of particulate organic carbon (POC), supplied as sinking detritus, through to its respiration by the biota via three pathways: colonization and solubilization of detritus by attached bacteria, production of free-living bacteria following losses of solubilization products during particle degradation, and consumption by detritivorous zooplankton. The relative consumption of detritus by attached bacteria was initially specified as 76%, with the remaining 24% by detritivores. Highlighting an asymmetry between consumption and respiration, the resulting predicted share of total respiration due to bacteria was 84.7%, with detritivores accounting for just 6.6% (with 6.5% and 2.2% by bacterivores and higher zooplankton, respectively). Bacteria thus dominated respiration and thereby acted as the principal sink for POC supplied to the mesopelagic zone, whereas zooplankton mainly recycled carbon back to the base of the food web as detritus or dissolved organic carbon rather than respiring it to CO2. Estimates of respiration are therefore not necessarily a reliable indicator of the relative roles of bacteria and zooplankton in consuming and processing POC in the mesopelagic zone of the ocean. The work highlighted a number of major unknowns, including how little we know in general about the dynamics and metabolic budgets of bacteria and zooplankton that inhabit the mesopelagic zone and, specifically, the degree to which the solubilized products of enzymatic hydrolysis of POC by attached bacteria are lost to the surrounding water, the magnitude and factors responsible for bacterial growth efficiency, the role of microbes in the nutrition of detritivores, and the recycling processes by which zooplankton return what they consume to the food web as detritus and dissolved organic matter
Chapter 09: The Challenge of Defining Cure in Oncology; Views of Research Approval Processes
No full textIn this chapter, Dr. Alexanian talks about the difficulty in defining cure when discussing cancer, and notes his own publication on the topic: Alexanian R, Delasalle K, Wang M, Thomas S, Weber D. Curability of multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Res 2012:916479, 2012. e-Pub 5/2012. PMCID: PMC3366198. [The recorder is paused for about 3 minutes.] Dr. Alexanian talks about how MD Anderson\u27s research approval processes get in the way of research and addressing patient needs. He admits, I\u27m a bit of a rebel. He tells an anecdote about providing drugs to patients.https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewchapters/1098/thumbnail.jp
Dwight D. Eisenhower to Dillon and Lena Anderson, December 20, 1956
No full textEisenhower invites the Andersons to the Inaugural ceremoniesJ
.¦f
r .
,}
- Jb
•^.,.- ¦
THE AVHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
f I
/,i'
¦ r
December 20, 1956
^IC
¦^'
1-
-fc
Dear Dillon and Lena:
^ r
With the official invitation to the Inaugural cere-
naonie
ompanie
come
also the hope that you will be the personal guests
Mamie and
be held on January twenty-first.
Since there are a number of other affairs to be
r
held during the Inaugural period, a letter frona Mr. Thomas E. Stephens is also attached, de¬ scribing all of them in some detail. Mr, Stephens will be glad to be helpful to you in the naatter of acconamodations, also, if you should so desire.
-d
With warm personal regard,
As ever,
;
r ¦-
Mr. and Mrs. Dillon Anderson 3414 Del Monte Street Houston 6 Texas
** ,
"
- …
