Barbara Maria Stafford, a professor of Art History at the University of Chicago, has been instrumental in bridging ideas from the sciences and social thought into the humanities: Her work focuses on how neuroscience and other recent developments in cognitive theory can help explain the unique visual knowledge we gain through artworks. Such is her far-ranging, trans-disciplinary appeal that she attracted an audience of students and scholars from fields as diverse as fine arts, literature, political science, philosophy and biology to her lecture in Goldwin Smith’s Lewis Auditorium yesterday entitled Slow Looking, co-sponsored by the departments of art history, architecture, art, urban and regional planning and chemical biology.

To the Editor:

Re: “To the Editor: Cleese’s claims completely un-scientific,” Opinion, April 23.

In this letter criticizing remarks about precognition made by John Cleese at the Hotel School, the author reveals that he misunderstands the nature of science. Science is a method of inquiry that enables one to investigate empirical claims. Even if some of those claims seem unlikely to be true on a priori grounds, that does not thereby render their investigation pseudo-science.

To the Editor:

Re: “Cleese Uses His Extensive Travel to Advise Hotelies,” News, April 21.

I was surprised that your extensive coverage of John Cleese’s recent lecture made no mention of what I found to be his most startling remarks: his claim that supernatural phenomena like astrology and human precognition have been scientifically confirmed and should therefore be incorporated into the study of human behavior.

I’d like to talk about the poor emphasis higher education has placed on math and science. Before you write this off as another economics column a la mode Thomas Friedman, hear this: I’m leaving the economy out of this one, and instead I’m going to try and convince you merely that your classic liberal arts education has failed you intellectually. Sound good? No comparing paychecks, no “useful” versus “non-useful” or “hard” versus “easy.” We’re keeping this above the belt and speaking solely of intellectual merit. Alright let’s get started.

To the Editor:

Re: “A Eulogy to the Physical Sciences Library,” Opinion, March 26

The Physical Sciences Library in Clark Hall will close at the end of 2009. The current budget climate necessitated this decision, and although the physical facility is shutting its doors, the library’s presence will remain as a portal for scholarly resources, a virtual collection and a service staffed by research specialists.

As departments across the University make cuts to their annual budgets to offset a $200 million budget shortfall, Weill Cornell Medical College is reaching deep into its pockets to scrounge more than $2.6 million — a sum that the University truly does not have to spare.

This exorbitant payment will be handed over to the U.S. government in order to resolve charges brought against the medical college for filing fraudulent claims in order to secure millions of federal research money from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, this incident was not an isolated one for Cornell. The University has spent millions in the past to cover up similar charges of fraud surrounding research funding.

From climate change to contraceptives, evolution to sex education in public schools, the Bush Administration had a stranglehold on science. But yesterday, President Obama began to loosen the government’s grip, lifting Bush’s imposed limits on federal funding for new stem cell research.

Bush’s 2001 bans on research funding transformed what should have been an intellectual academic debate into a bipartisan political battle, overstepping his bounds as he drew on moral and religious sentiments supporting his cause. Today, Obama is seeking a return to “sound science,” pledging to weed out all of the political meddling.

“Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, and then we may perhaps find the truth.” Remember that quote? No? Well, at a time when scientists had lost all hope of solving the chemical structure of atoms, let alone compounds, Friedrich Kekule proved there was a way out. Not by hard work (although he did put in the effort) but by sheer serendipity — a DREAM, literally a daydream. Kekule had just taken a nap, and while napping, he rel="nofollow">saw a bunch of beads — six to be specific, stringed together — juxtaposed unto a snake figure. The snake wiggled and curled itself, and before you know it, the snake was biting its tail.

“Plant medicine encompasses the study of plant health problems of all types including prevention, diagnosis, management and local and international production for the next generation,” Bob McGovern ’83 said during a lecture on the “University of Florida Plant Medicine Program: Changing the Paradigm for the Plant Health,” in the Plant Science Building, last week.

The lecture was part of a weekly seminar funded by the Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, and was attended by members of the plant community.

Across the globe, plant breeders seek genetically modified plants to increase crop yield, build up disease resistance and delay crop ripening. Meanwhile, national governments and activist groups question the safety of these crops.

Greenpeace, an environmental activist group, has led numerous protests calling for a ban on G.M. corn. France and Greece have ignored possible sanctions from the E.U. by actively speaking against the cultivation of G.M. corn, papaya and eggplant.

Genetic modification involves transferring a gene of interest from one species into another. In some cases, plant breeders insert these genes into a naturally occurring bacterium and then into the target plant. The final G.M. product contains only the transported gene and not the bacterium as a whole.