Jordan Harrod

Paper of the Week - June 16th

2018-06-16T00:00:00+00:00

This week’s paper can be found here: Scientists’ Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research

Note: Yes, I’m late this week. Normally, I try to have things out by Wednesday, but this week got a little crazy with planning for the Student Summit (if this is your first time on my blog, WELCOME and more details on the student summit can be found here), so I’m just now getting to all the other things. Planning to get back on track this week!

Also, this is another paper that is behind a paywall. In the future, I’m going to do my best to pick papers that are open sourced, but you don’t need the paper to get the idea for this one.

Welcome back to Paper of the Week!

For the first time ever, I did not find this paper on Twitter. In fact, it is not a new paper - it was published in 2016. It’s also not on “hard science” - instead, we’re talking about science advocacy.

Why am I writing about this? Well, in an era where new technology touches the average person’s life well before it is possible for governments to regulate it, scientists are one of the few groups who have the power to explain the possible consequences of using that technology, positive or not. However, communication and advocacy have not been a huge part of the academic community in the past, even between scientists, so we haven’t seen scientists step up to the plate as much as (I believe) they could. Similarly, science is often driven by whether or not we can do something, not whether or not we should, and I think that the latter should become a bigger part of the scientific method. Just because we can develop new technology, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be mindful of the ways that technology can be misused.

On to the paper: Today, we’re focusing on nanotechnology. This paper, titled “Scientists’ Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research,” was written by Dr. Elizabeth Corley, Dr, Youngjae Kim, and Dr. Dietram Scheufele at Arizona State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Corley, Kim, and Scheufele note off the bat that policy change often lags behind emerging technology, allowing new science to go unchecked by the government, and that there have been some progress within the scientific community with regard to policy advocacy. Similarly, there have been studies on how the average person’s opinions on new technology depend on their personal values. However, there had not been much research into how scientists and engineers’ opinions on new technology are affected by their values. Luckily for us, Corley, Kim, and Scheufele decided to ask some nano-scientists, and report their findings.

What did they find out? Well, a lot of things:

Female nano-scientists had a stronger sense of social and ethical responsibility for their research than male scientists.
Academic scientists were more likely to say that lab directors had an ethical obligation to keep their staff safe than non-academic scientists.
Academic scientists were more likely to say that scientists should be allowed to do research if they respected ethical standards than non-academic scientists
Non-academic scientists were more likely to say that federal funding agencies should require the labs the fund to have guidelines to protect their workers than academic scientists
Sense of social and ethical responsibility did not vary with political affiliation
Scientists who support nanotechnology regulations at the local or state level had a weaker sense of responsibility
Scientists who paid more attention to media coverage of social/ethical issues were more likely to think that authorities should require scientists to respect ethical standards
Scientists who had a higher risk perception - that is, who felt that they might experience negative consequences due to research activities - were less likely to believe that scientists should be allowed to do whatever research they want to.
And much more!

This paper had several hypotheses and even more results, so I’m going to cut it short there. There are a few things to keep in mind when you think about these results:

The survey they sent out was answered fully by 444 people. Given that there are way more than 444 nano-scientists, let alone scientists, in the world, these results can’t necessarily be generalized, and probably shouldn’t be.
82.5% of the people who answered the survey were men. So, when I say that female scientists had a stronger sense of responsibility than men, keep in mind that the results may be a bit biased because of the small number of women who responded.
Similarly, 2% of the people who responded were Hispanic, and 0.5% were African American. 63.5% identified as White, and 31.8% identified as Asian. In other words, racial diversity was not well represented in this survey, and a more diverse set of survey respondents might lead to different results.
74% of the people who responded were academic researchers, so there may also be some bias in those comparisons.

What can we take from this? Well, it probably doesn’t surprise anyone that people’s values affect their opinions on social and ethical issues. However, it should be noted that funding sources seem to impact perceptions of responsibility, in spite of the fact that your funding source isn’t necessarily related to issues of social and ethical responsibility. In addition, “ethical standards” isn’t really defined in this paper, so it probably varies between scientists and between fields. We should make an effort to broadly define “ethics standards” that could apply to all fields, as well as standards for specific areas of science, so that we can mount a united front as policy advocates and incorporate the concept of social and ethics responsibility in science into science funding standards. Although government regulation may not always be able to keep up with scientific advancements, we can all do our part to help policymakers support emerging technology without allowing potentially dangerous advancements to go unchecked.

Making a Chrissy Teigen Bot (Summer Project 1)

2018-06-11T00:00:00+00:00

In addition to organizing the March for Science Student Summit (shameless plug - more information here), I am trying my hand at a new machine learning project! I’ve never worked with natural language processing before, and wanted to learn about data mining, so I decided to make a program that creates tweets based on training data from a particular user.

Initially, I wanted to use myself, but I needed a large enough dataset to even have a shot at generative realistic tweets. I also needed a user that was not likely to become… problematic (a la Microsoft’s super racist twitter bot). After a thorough search (read: I opened Twitter and scrolled twice), I found the perfect person - Chrissy Teigen!

So far, I’ve downloaded the tweets using the Tweepy API and done some light pre-processing to remove unncesessary metadata. I’m planning to pick a model over the next couple days, and will update this post as things happen!

You can follow my progress on GitHub here: https://github.com/harrodjordan/ItsChrissy

Done

Learned to use Tweepy
Downloaded roughly 3000 tweets

Website Update!

2018-06-10T00:00:00+00:00

Welcome to my new website theme!

I was in the mood for a different layout from the one that I had before - something a little prettier. This is definitley closer to what I want, but I’ll still be making some edits over the next couple days to the home page so that it isn’t just a list of posts.

Stay tuned for project updates and this week’s Paper of the Week!

Call to Action - March for Science Youth Advocacy Summit!

2018-06-07T00:00:00+00:00

This blog is still somewhat new, but I thought it would be a good place to put out a call to action to my friends and followers!

I’m working with the March for Science to organize the Youth Advocacy Summit, which will be July 6-8 in Chicago! We’re nailing down session hosts as I type, but we are still looking for people to lead sessions or sit on panels on the following topics, so if you or someone you know is interested in hosting a session or sitting on a panel and lives in the Chicago area, please send me an email at jordan.b.harrod@gmail.com! The topics are listed below.

The Summit is free for all attending students, so all of our funding is currently going to cover room reservations, equipment rentals, and other on-site costs associated with hosting the summit. Unfortunately, this means that we cannot compensate or reimburse session hosts. Because of this, those not from the Chicago area are welcome to host sessions as well, but should know that we cannot cover their expenses. Sorry!

Technology Policy - This will be a lecture that covers current topics in technology policy that students should be aware of, followed by a panel Q&A where students can ask questions about the topics covered. I am looking to cover artificial intelligence, data sharing, net neutrality, and other related topics.

Health Policy - This will be a lecture that covers current topics in health policy that students should be aware of, followed by a panel Q&A where students can ask questions about the topics covered. Anyone from public health policy-related fields is welcome - the topic for this panel is less defined given how broad the field is - although I’d definitely like to get some Medicare/Medicaid people.

Science in the Media - This session is pretty open-ended. I think it would be cool to have science journalists come in to talk about their experiences in a Q&A, or discuss the different manifestations of science in media, but I’m open to other ideas.

Science and The Federal Budget - This session will give students an overview of how science fits into the federal budget, and how they can advocate for increased spending at different budgetary levels. Ideally, I’d like for this to be an interactive session with some budget allocation exercise for students to do in groups.

Thank you again for reading this and spreading the word!

Paper of the Week - June 6th

2018-06-06T00:00:00+00:00

This week’s paper can be found here: A high-impedance detector-array glove for magnetic resonance imaging of the hand

Note: This paper is behind a paywall on the Nature Biomedical Engineering website. Unfortunately, this is all too common for scientific literature, making it difficult for non-scientists (or even scientists who are not from the same field) to access current research. If you do have access through your institution, I’d encourage you to check it out! If you don’t, I’d encourage you to join the discussion over open access publications that the academic community is currently having. There is also an earlier paper from this lab on a similar topic.

Welcome back to Paper of the Week!

We are two for two on papers that I found via Twitter! I’m not sure if that is a good thing, but I can tell you that this is a really cool paper and I am really excited to write about it.

Note #2: Have a cool paper that you’d like to see me talk about? Thought this paper was cool and want to talk about it? Have questions about STEM, undergrad, grad (haven’t started yet so no promises there), or anything else? Tweet it to me -> @jordanbharrod

This week’s paper is titled “A high-impedence detector-array glove for magnetic resonance imaging of the hand” and it comes from New York University’s School of Medicine.

Why is this paper so cool? Well, for anyone who has ever had an MRI, we know that they are rather large and unbecoming machines that force our bodies to bend to their will (Yes, it’s not that bad, but still). During my undergrad, I volunteered for a bunch of fMRI studies that required me to sit in MRIs for a couple hours every week (it was worth it $$$), so I’ve been in enough different MRI machines to know that, in most clinical cases, there are two rules:

You can either have high spatial resolution (really detailed images) or high temporal resolution (a lot of images in a short period of time), but not both.
Don’t move.

The second rule is the one that really gets to us - the people getting the MRI - because what if you have an itch? Or you have to sneeze? Hopefully, you have the self-control to restrain yourself, because otherwise, you might have to retake that MRI.

Why is that the case? Well, it has to do with the way that MRI images are taken and reconstructed. If you’re interested in an in-depth review, check out this website, which I found to be really useful when I was taking the medical imaging class that I would later go on to TA. In short, the raw MRI data contains information about where that each data point should be in the recontructed image, and how bright that data point should be. When you move, the information about where that data point should be is changed, and the reconstructed image does not accurately represent your body.

This second rule is inconvenient for another reason - MRI is typically used to image tissues (as opposed to bone), and could be used to monitor how tissues move after an injury, which currently can’t be done. This has applications in areas like sports medicine, where muscle injuries are common but can be hard to diagnose.

But we’re in luck! This detector array glove has the potential to erase that second rule by allowing doctors to image a moving hand during an MRI without the reconstruction problems that we would normally have. The glove uses high-impedence coils (MRIs typically use low impedence) that are attached to your standard glove, which you would then wear into the MRI machine for imaging.

Why high impedence over low impedence? Let’s go back to how MRI images are taken. When you lay down in an MRI for a scan, the machine uses extremely strong magents to apply a magnetic field to all of the protons in your body, aligning them. Then, another field is applied, causing protons in different tissues to move away from this alignment to varying degrees. The MRI machine’s detector records the energy each proton releases as they realign with the original magnetic field. The detector is typically made up of those low impedence coils.

Impendence is a measure of how much resistance to current flow something exhibits, so low impedence coils allow a lot of current to flow. Unfortunately, that current can interfere with the other coils in the MRI, which messes up the resultant image, so the coils can only be arranged in specific designs to prevent that interferance. On the other hand, this glove uses high impedence coils, which prevent current flow, and therefore prevent that interference between coils, allowing you to move your hand in the glove without ruining the image.

Your next question might be: Why does high impedence seem to work better for this application than low impedence? Aaaand that’s where my expertise runs out. Based on the paper, it seems like the appeal of low impedence coils was energy efficiency - you can use less energy to record the signal for the image. High impedence coils might require more energy, at which point the cost of energy used might not be worth it (or may be unsafe).

In either case, I thought this paper was very cool, and am looking forward to further developments in the field of MRI that might expand applications towards high resolution images of moving patients for sports medicine!

Opinion - Artificial Intelligence Needs Citizen Science

2018-06-05T00:00:00+00:00

Are you interested in doing science alongside academic and industry researchers?

No, you don’t need to have a background in science. All you need to participate is to enjoy playing games.

Chances are, you would be interested. In fact, roughly 60% of Americans expressed interest in science and technology in 2015. For reference, 44% of Americans expressed interest in sports, so more Americans want to know about new and developing technology than want to know who won the last Superbowl (No, that’s probably not true, but you get the point).

Citizen science allows anyone to become involved in scientific research. In fact, it’s been around for a while, dating back to the 17th century, and has gained steam over the past several years as scientists learn to leverage the Internet and apps to reach wider audiences. Typically, citizen science allows the average person to help researchers collect and analyze data that they may not have access to otherwise. As exciting as data analysis likely sounds (Hint: It doesn’t), recent iterations of citizen science have focused on adapting data analysis techniques to online games. People have discovered protein structures by playing FoldIt, have identified new genes using Phylo, and have sped up Alzheimer’s research on Stall Catchers.

The applications of citizen science are endless, especially in areas of research that rely on datasets that accurately represent groups of people, such as artificial intelligence.

Oh, wait.

Artificial intelligence doesn’t use citizen science?

Well, no, not exactly.

Currently, there are hundreds of different types of datasets available to AI researchers who are looking to train new algorithms. The data is often collected by research groups or industry companies and made public in an effort to support the wider AI community. However, recent headlines have detailed the failures and biases of AI that has been trained on those datasets: from not recognizing images of black women (or identifying black people as gorillas) to being more likely to classify black people or low-income geographic regions as at high risk for crime.

Some of these failures rely on access to data that the average person could not or should not provide, such as recidivism rates or HIPAA-protected health data. Access to that kind of data would require restructuring of data privacy regulations on a federal level, which should be advocated for both to provide better data to researchers and to protect the privacy of the data that is currently in use, but will not happen overnight.

However, there is no shortage of selfies on the phones and social media profiles of Americans, regardless of demographics.

To be sure, those participating in citizen science should be able to do so with the knowledge that their data will be protected and can only be used with their approval. Blockchain has been proposed as a potential solution to this, as has updated and more clearly defined privacy policies for citizen science research that handles personal data, such as the new GDPR regulations.

Researchers need to engage citizens in the scientific process, both to improve technologies that will eventually be incorporated into their daily lives, and to maintain public support of science and technology during this time of increased public doubt in the scientific process. Create apps that allow people to see how their pictures have improved the accuracy of a facial recognition algorithm. Design games that identify biases in day-to-day decisions that researchers can account for in their research. Educate citizens on how they can become involved in science, and why they should, so that they can go back and tell their policymakers to support the research that might save and improve their lives.

After all, AI is the future, and the future is now. Don’t you want it to treat you well?

Paper of the Week for May 30th, 2018

2018-05-30T00:00:00+00:00

The paper can be found here: Extraordinary plasticity of an inorganic semiconductor in darkness

*Disclaimer: I am far from a materials scientist. In fact, I’m probably closer to a layperson when it comes to inorganic materials and semiconductors. Comments and corrections are welcome. I’m always looking to learn!

Welcome to Paper of the Week!

Every week, I’m going to pick a paper that caught my eye (usually from Twitter if I’m being honest) and tell you about it!

This week’s paper is titled “Extraordinary plasticity of an inorganic semiconductor in darkness,” and it comes from a lab in the Department of Materials Physics, Nagoya University in Japan. This is definitely the first time I’ve ever seen the term “extraordinary” used in the title of a journal article, so this paper would have been a serious contender for that alone.

Let’s start from the basics. As you may have already noticed, some materials conduct electricity and some do not. Whether or not a particular material conducts electricity depends on the quantity of free electrons and holes (locations in the material with no electrons) in the material. Glass, which is an insulator, does not have free electrons, and therefore does not conduct electricity.

Thermal energy, or heat, can change the number of free electrons and holes present in a material, as can light irradiation. Increasing the number of free electrons and holes decreases the resistance of the material. If an electrical field is applied to this material (for example, by creating a voltage difference across the material), the holes and free electrons will become excited, and the material will become electrically conductive relative to the number of free electrons and holes. Semiconductors are these such materials, where some of the electrons are bound in covalent bonds, and some move freely within the material.

This is where darkness and plasticity come in. The number of free electrons and holes present in a material depends somewhat on the material’s crystalline structure, and that structure changes when stress or strain are induced into that material. Therefore, the properties of the crystalline structure of the material, including plasticity, can be altered with applied energy, in the form of thermal energy or light irradiation. In theory, you could have a material that becomes less conductive when bent, only for that reduction to be counteracted by light irradiation of the material.

But what about the absence of light? This paper found that a zinc sulfide crystal, when placed in total darkness, became significantly more plastic, or deformable. Crystals that were deformed under either LED or UV light reached roughly 2% strain before yielding, whereas crystals deformed in total darkness reached 45% strain. That’s a crazy amount of deformation for a crystal that could barely withstand stress without breaking in normal light!

We talked earlier about how light irradiation of a material could increase the number of free electrons and holes, so I would expect that while the total darkness might make the crystals more deformable, it would also reduce the energy of the free electrons and holes. Interestingly (to me, a person who does not work in this field), that’s not quite what happens. In the next section of the paper, which looks at the light-absorption characteristics of the material, the authors note that the optical band gap (or the amount of energy required for an electron to leave the covalent bond of the crystal structure and become free) decreases at 35% strain. While they did not show any data on conductivity tests between light-deformed and darkness-deformed crystal samples, I would think that this means that the conductance is similar between the two crystals, because of the reduction in the bandgap would allow previously free electrons to remain free. Alternatively, the conductance could decrease, but not as much as one would expect.

The paper goes on to discuss why this increased plasticity in darkness might occur, but in the interest of not misleading anyone, I won’t cover that since I didn’t fully understand it myself.

Why should you care? Well, semiconductors like zinc sulfide power many of the electronics we use today, and in recent years, we’ve seen technology begin to shift towards flexible electronics that could more easily interface with the average person’s body. If darkness allows for semiconductors to become more flexible while maintaining their conductive properties (or if that flexibility allows for the acquisition of new measurements due to changes in resistance based on deformation), then we could see some interesting new technology come of discoveries like this.

Welcome to my website!

2018-05-16T00:00:00+00:00

This is my first blog post!

Of many, hopefully.

Stay up to date with my research, outreach, and projects by bookmarking this website!

You can also follow me on Twitter to get my real time opinions on anything from science to policy.

Projects

2018-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Current Projects

March for Science - Youth Advocacy Summit

I am working with the March for Science to plan a Youth Advocacy Summit in Chicago on July 7-8th, 2018! I will be organizing and moderating sessions focused on science communication and science education based on my experiences. Feel free to reach out if you’d like to partner with us to host a session!

Past Projects

Cornell Undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Society

During my time at Cornell, I co-founded and was co-President of the Cornell Undergraduate BMES for a year and a half. Because I am a member of the inagural BME undergraduate class at Cornell, we did not have an existing society or community to be a part of, unlike other majors, so I decided to make one with some of my friends! We partnered with the BME Department and other organizations on campus to host professional development sessions, student panels on BME, recuiting efforts for Engineering Admissions, social events for current BMEs, and outreach opportunities in the local community. While I graduated in May 2018 and am no longer directly involved in the leadership, you can stay up to date with that Cornell BMES is doing on our Facebook page.

Splash at Cornell

I also taught a course on biomaterials and artificial organs! Splash at Cornell gives undergrads the opportunity to design their own course curriculum and teach it to middle and high school students every semester. My course history can be found here. I designed and taught my course for six semesters.

CV

2018-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

For a more detailed CV, please download the PDF here

EDUCATION

Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Cambridge, MA

Incoming Ph.D. Student in Medical Engineering and Medical Physics (Expected May 2024)

Concentration in Electrical Engineering

GEM Associate Fellow

Sigma Xi Society, Associate Member

Cornell University, College of Engineering, Ithaca, NY

B.S. in Biomedical Engineering (Inagural Graduating Class, Expected: May 2018)

Concentration in Bioinstrumentation and Imaging (EECS)

Sigma Xi Society, Associate Member

RESEARCH

Undergraduate Research Assistant, Laboratories of Dr. Lawrence Bonassar and Dr. Lara Estroff,

Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering/Department of Materials Science and Engineering Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

May 2015 – Present

I aim to characterize and replicate the meniscal entheses, which attach the meniscal body to bone.

● Created meniscal enthesis constructs using trabecular bone cores containing mineralization gradients and tested tensile strength of constructs to determine the ideal demineralization profile for enthesis.

● Created custom MATLAB scripts to analyze the demineralization profile of partially demineralized trabecular bone cores.

● Established a standardized demineralization procedure for trabecular bone cores to further improve the mechanical properties of meniscal enthesis constructs.

● Analyzed microCT scans of demineralized bone experimental samples qualitatively by creating 3D renderings in Avizo Fire.

● Implemented histological techniques to compare protein localization and collagen fiber alignment in meniscal enthesis constructs to the native enthesis.

Amgen Scholar, Laboratory of Dr. Lei Xing,

Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University, Stanford, CA

June 2017–August 2017

I aimed to develop a neural network that will identify artifacts in real-time MRI imaging.

● Developed a recurrent convolutional neural network to automate artifact identification in real-time MRI.

● Developed a deep convolutional neural network that automates aliasing artifact identification on MRI images.

● Developed Python algorithm to introduce aliasing motion artifacts in complex-valued MRI images.

Biomarker Development Intern, Clinical and Translational Imaging Group,

Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research, East Hanover, NJ

May 2016 - August 2016

At Novartis, I aimed to more efficiently process Proof-of-Concept data for several pre-clinical drug trials using MATLAB, Spotfire, and Microsoft Office to prove their efficacy.

● Generated Proof-of-Concept data for several concurrent preclinical studies for transition to the next stage in FDA approval.

● Analyzed optical coherence tomography images of intra-retinal fluids to determine drug efficacy on reduction of fluid volumes in a clinical trial.

● Validated novel software that aimed to better visualize intra-retinal fluids using three-dimensional reconstructions and user-delineated fluid selections.

● Evaluated clinical trial data to determine systemic and local effects of a new topical analgesic treatment using Spotfire and Microsoft Excel visualization and data analysis techniques.

Research Assistant, Biomaterials and Interface Tissue Engineering Lab,

Department of Biomedical Engineering Columbia University, New York City, NY

March 2014 - July 2014

At Columbia, I aimed to determine whether nanofiber polymer scaffolds intended for use in drug delivery could withstand the mechanical stresses experienced by the periodontal ligament.

● Mapped tensile properties of nanofiber scaffolds to validate them as a replacement for native periodontal ligamentous tissue.

● Electrospun polymer nanofiber scaffolds of different chemical compositions.

● Performed fluorescence assays on cell-seeded scaffolds to determine DNA content and cell viability.

● Performed mechanical testing to determine failure energies of polymer scaffolds and interpreted results using MATLAB and Microsoft Excel.

PUBLICATIONS

Jordan Harrod, Morteza Mardani, John Pauly, Lei Xing. “Deep Predictive Coding For Super Time-Resolved MR Imaging” (Abstract) Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, December 9th, 2017

Jordan Harrod, Morteza Mardani, Lei Xing. “Automated Artifact Identification in MR Images Using Deep Convolutional Networks” (Abstract) BMES Annual Meeting, 2017, October 11th, 2017

Guillaume Normand, Eric H Souied, Bruno Lay, Ronan Danno, Rocio Blanco-Garavito, Perrinne Charrard, Jordan Harrod, Michael Maker, Sudeep Chandra, Georges Weissgerber. “Validation of 3D volumetry for a novel anti- angiogenic therapy of neovascular age-related macular degeneration” (Abstract), ARVO Annual Meeting 2017, May 8, 2017

PRESENTATIONS

Jordan Harrod, Morteza Mordani, Lei Xing. “Motion Artifact Detection for Real-Time MR Imaging” Stanford Summer Research Program Symposium. August 23, 2017

Team TransFur (Jordan Harrod, Elizabeth Feeney, Morgan Feldman, Priya Balasubramanian) “TransFur – Top 10 Finalist Presentation” Animal Health Hackathon, January 29th, 2017

TEACHING

Undergraduate Teaching Assistant

BME 3310: Medical and Preclinical Imaging

Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University

● Advised students on imaging modalities and image analysis, and held office hours.

Undergraduate Teaching Assistant

BME 3030: Measurement and Instrumentation in Biomedical Engineering

Meinig School of Biomedical Engineering, Cornell University

● Designed and taught a lecture on advanced biomedical data manipulation.

● Advised students on circuit design and experimental design during an instrumentation lab and held office hours.

Chemistry Tutor

CHEM 1007: Academic Support for CHEM 2070

Department of Chemistry, Cornell University

• Tutored underclassmen in introductory chemistry

AWARDS AND HONORS

National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) Scholarship May 2017

National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Cornell University Diversity Programs in Engineering

Undergraduate Excellence in Service Award

Cornell University Diversity Programs in Engineering

Animal Health Hackathon, 9th Place (Team TransFur)

Entrepreneurship at Cornell, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine

National Residence Hall Honorary Student of the Year

National Residence Hall Honorary, Cornell University Chapter

National Residence Hall Honorary Student of the Month

National Residence Hall Honorary, Cornell University Chapter