Understanding the Four Forces

Harpreet Thandi

We want to understand the world around us. There are four theorized forces in our universe. These are the nuclear force (weak force), the strong force, gravity, and the electromagnetic force. These all act very differently around us.

fourfundamentalforces

The weak force is responsible for processes such as fission (radioactive decay), particles like muons, leptons, and others with short lifetimes. This is the 3rd strongest force and only stronger than gravity. It counteracts the strong force. With a range of just,10-18m smaller than an atom (10-15m). It exchanges energy with the bosons, the particles that carry charge. The Weak force has a very short lifetime. This seems like a problem. However, due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle it is possible to have a large amount of energy for a short time.

One way to put this is if you multiply numbers to make 9 or another fixed value like ℏ/2 or higher. We can of course do 3×3; but if one of numbers is bigger let’s say, 3000000 then the other must be 0.000003 to compensate, now we have achieved 3000000×0.000003=9 as before.

sm

The strong force binds (joins) the nucleus together. This has the 2nd   shortest range of 10-15m. This acts on quarks inside protons and neutrons equally to “glue it together”. The neutrons help control the atom and when they get too close this force keeps them apart. Like a sad romance. An analogy often given involves sellotape. First you feel nothing until, you get close and then it acts sticks “the strong force repels actually”. These two forces act inside of the atom. The outcome of these forces can be seen on the periodic table as the range is the size of a nucleus-this stops atoms from getting too big. In addition to this the larger atoms decay via the weak force.

Gravitation binds the universe together, keeps the planets in orbit, people grounded (well some of us!!), and acts on anything that has considerable mass, like Newton’s apple. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity causes a distortion of space and time. This is the weakest of the force, but has an infinite range and acts by using gravitons. These have never been observed yet, sadly.

Magnetism and Electricity were once thought of as separate concepts. However, after observations and mathematical reasoning were shown to be linked as a single force. Famously, in 1820 Hans Christian Ørsted saw a needle being deflected by a battery cable and James Clerk Maxwell proved the two waves were perpendicular to each other.

Electromagnetism binds atoms and anything else in the universe that has charge e.g. protons, electrons, muons. This is the 2nd strongest force and has an infinite range using photons. Another way of looking at this would be a fridge magnet. This is many magnitudes stronger than gravity-something to think about. These two forces act outside of the atom.

For the last 30 years of his life, Einstein tried to unify gravitation and electromagnetism without success. This seems possible, given the similarities with infinite range and both being the most visible to mankind. This pursuit was driven by a need to have things joined together which exist together. In a 1923 lecture stating “The intellect seeking after an integrated theory cannot rest content with the assumption that there exist two distinct fields totally independent of each other by their nature”. Back in the 1900s only protons, electrons and these two forces were known about. Einstein rejected the new quantum mechanics stating “god does not play dice”.  Over time Einstein became an outsider towards mainstream physics. Rather than using physical intuition “thought experiments” that birthed most of those great works, he now became obsessed with only mathematical understanding. Michio Kaku; professor of theoretical physics at the City College of New York, would consider Einstein to be thinking way ahead of his time. Most of the physics that Einstein would have needed as a base had not been discovered yet.

Physicists today take on this unification challenge. An idea called string theory is required. This requires 10 dimensions to explain the physics, and is a mathematical quest. It is an extension of Einstein’s 5 dimensions. This is hard to prove experimentally. However, researchers are constantly working on translating this into something observable. This is a very different and hard to imagine view of our universe. We must hope there is a way to translate these mathematical predictions into the real world.

 

Brain Altering Parasites

toxoplasma_gondii

Jonathan Cooke

Fans of The Last of Us might be familiar with brain-altering parasites. These little critters and fungi are slowly creeping into the popular imagination thanks in part to media using them as the instigator of the ever-popular zombie apocalypse genre. The ‘bad guy’ of choice in The Last of Us is the parasite Cordyceps; a fungus that is represented by multiple species which ‘zombify’ their hosts, turning them into vessels for their reproduction.

Fortunately for you, Cordyceps; or more precisely Ophiocordyceps only prey on tiny insects found on the forest floor. In fact, they are quite an effective pest control, helping to keep insect populations in check.

Generally, whether or not the parasite kills their host, it will manipulate the host into a situation that is more advantageous for the parasite. For instance, if the current host is merely an intermediary for the parasite can reach their final host they will manipulate the current host’s behaviour to make it more likely they will come into contact with the final host.

Such parasites include the protozoan Toxoplasma gondii; which infect rodents, but reproduce in cats, alter the behaviour of their rodent hosts. Several behavioural experiments have found that rats infected by the parasite are much more likely to take risks than their non-infected counter-parts. This leaves them more susceptible to eaten by their feline predators, thereby continuing the parasites lifecycle.

These behavioural changes are usually brought about by manipulating the hosts brain chemistry, either increasing or decreasing the brains response to signals it is receiving. In the case of the rodents, T.gondii ‘makes’ encourages risk-taking behaviour by ignoring environmental stimuli that work to make them dive for cover, such as the scent of cats. In several experiments that exposed rats to the smell of various different organisms, rats infected with T.gondii tended to frequent areas that smelled of cats and were not scared of cats when they were in the area. This is part of the parasite’s ‘extended phenotype’; where the behaviour of the host changes to maximise the survival chances of the parasites genes.

Again and again these manipulations have been observed in the animal kingdom (although for the most part the actual mechanisms are not fully understood, I should know, I wrote my dissertation on it) but what if they do affect humans?

Are humans manipulated in the same way that others are, to benefit those organisms that are so much smaller than us?

Humans are parasitized by many different organisms, tapeworms being a well-known example. However, most parasites we know steal nutrients from the food we eat, or feed off us directly, like ticks. In both cases, they don’t kill us, and don’t need to do something as energy consuming as manipulating their host’s behaviour.

Manipulating your host’s behaviour typically indicates that you want your host to move somewhere or do something that would be out of the ordinary for them; but is advantageous for you as the parasite, e.g. in the case with Cordyceps, which want their spores to be better distributed, or you want your host to be eaten, such as with T.gondii.

Neither of those strategies would be viable in humans. We don’t tend to get eaten by other organisms until we die naturally and unless the parasite only breeds around beach resorts in Tenerife, there’s not much point in changing our behaviour.

So, what if it’s accidental? What if we get infected by something were not supposed to? How might a parasite, not realising its reached a reproductive dead-end, affect us? Well ever since humanity has been looking after our feline friends we’ve run the risk of accidental infection by T.gondii, although no one is quite clear as what this infection might do to us. Infection rates vary widely across the country and for the vast majority of the population infection is completely asymptomatic, though infection can also trigger toxoplasmosis which can have lethal consequences.

Some observational evidence from studies, seem to suggest that infection has a demonstrable effect on the behaviour of those who have picked up the parasite, although the consequences do differ between males and females. Women seemingly become more intelligent, affectionate, and more likely to follow rules, whilst men tend to mellow out, becoming more loyal and mild-tempered when compared against other males.

The only trait that those who are infected share across both genders is a higher level of neuroticism, being more likely to blame themselves for problems in their lives and to have a high sense of insecurity.

However, these correlations are just that – correlations. No work has been done to prove that T.gondii is what is causing these behavioural changes in people – if they are changes at all.

Perhaps the reverse is happening; those of us with these traits are more prone to getting infected. Very little work – for obvious ethical reasons – has been done to see T.gondii interacts with the human body. However, perhaps we can take small pleasure in the idea that it is going to be convincing us to get eaten by lions anytime soon.

Behaviour altering parasites is a new, emerging field in biology; its effects are rarely documented and even more rarely understood in how they work. For many years, however, there has been a fundamental view that humans are not affected by such parasites and that we are apart from the animal kingdom in this regard.

Perhaps it’s time we address this view?

The ‘Tetris Effect’

rrrrrtetrisfabricfinal_shop_preview

Jess Jarvis

Tetris – a game we’ve all played at some point throughout our childhood. A frustratingly addictive, yet somewhat simplistic game, involving aligning falling blocks in horizontal lines, to gain points.

But whom would’ve thought that a game which stamped out hours of our summer holiday boredom, could hold such valuable, therapeutic properties?

//giphy.com/embed/8ImrFjLQJv1e<p><a href=”https://giphy.com/gifs/geek-tetris-leggings-8ImrFjLQJv1e”>via GIPHY</a></p>

The BBC reported recently that Tetris may actually be beneficial to our physical and mental health. Helping to ease patient suffering in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), curb cravings for addictive substances and even treat lazy eyes!

Scientists have suggested that it is the captivating and immersive ease of playing Tetris which ‘makes it potentially powerful as a therapeutic tool’.

Prof. Emily Holmes, a previous visiting professor in Clinical Psychology at the University of Oxford, has spent many years of her career studying the potential use and effectiveness of Tetris in therapy and medicine. She suggests that it is the visual aspect of Tetris that makes it so absorbing. Unlike other games, the diversity in colour, shape and movement taps into the visual memory. The ‘Tetris Effect’ can be so intense, that people often report seeing the ‘falling blocks in their thoughts and dreams’ after playing.

Easing Suffering in PTSD

Prof. Holmes and her colleagues published a study in 2017, which showed how intrusive memories and ‘flashbacks’ – characteristic of PTSD – could be significantly reduced by playing Tetris. This study was one of the first to look at the use of Tetris as a therapeutic intervention. It suggested that the high ‘visuospatial demands’ of Tetris occupied the sensory elements of memory, preventing the consolidation of traumatic memories in the mind.

6 hours following a motor vehicle trauma, participants were delivered either a control intervention (writing a log for 20 minutes) or a Tetris intervention (20 minutes of game play). A week later, compared to the control group, those whom had played Tetris were significantly less affected by intrusive memories. Furthermore, their incidence of intrusions was significantly lower too!

From analysing previous research, Tetris seems to be the only game which has a positive effect on preventing intrusive memories following trauma. Not only is the intervention extremely effective, it is also very simple and helpful for people to use. It is low in intensity and the game itself, creates minimal distress. It reduces the symptoms of PTSD, whilst still allowing the ability to make sense of the event.

Further studies with more participants could show whether Tetris might have a real impact on the quality of life for sufferers following trauma. This research is only in the early stages though, and has a long way to go before it can be implemented into clinical situations.

Curbing Addiction and Cravings

Scientists from Plymouth University and Queensland University of Technology, have said playing Tetris can also help control cravings for addictive substances.

31 students took part in this experience sampling study. They were sent text messages throughout the day which asked them to rate their current level of cravings for drugs (e.g. cigarettes), food and drink (e.g. coffee, alcohol), and activities such as exercise and sex.

Half of the students were given a device to play short games of Tetris throughout the day. This mini intervention showed Tetris to have an effect, whereby cravings reduced more in those who played the game.

Prof. Jackie Andrade believes Tetris has an effect on curbing addictive cravings, because cravings involve imagining an intense experience of indulging in the use of a particular substance. Therefore, the demanding nature of Tetris on the sensory mental processes in the brain, makes it extremely difficult to imagine cravings vividly and make sense of them, whilst playing Tetris at the same time.

Treating a Lazy eye (Amblyopia)

Dr. Robert Hess, from McGill University in Canada (2013), completed a small study to see whether Tetris could help treat a condition known as lazy eye or amblyopia.

Previous treatments have only focused on retraining the ‘lazy eye’ alone. In the past doctors had recommended “covering the “good” eye with a patch to make the “lazy” one work harder.”

However, it became apparent to the researchers that the only way to help solve amblyopia was to solve the disruption to binocular vision and encourage the two eyes to work together.

Dr. Robert Hess, used headset-video goggles to display an adapted version of Tetris. Through these goggles Tetris was displayed dichoptically, ‘where one eye was allowed to see only the falling objects, and the other eye was allowed to see only the ground plane objects.’ This adaptation required the eyes to work simultaneously.

Results showed half of the participants played regular Tetris with the stronger eye patched up, while the other half of the participants played the adapted game with both eyes open. At the end of the study both groups improved, but those who used both eyes and played the game through the headset, showed a dramatic improvement.

Many people play Tetris just to pass the time. However, it seems as though Tetris may have therapeutic benefits; showing an amazing and captivating effect on the mental and physical processes in the body and enabling interventions for many kinds of disorders and conditions.

 

The Science of Sexuality

3755284016_crop380w_istock_000021997198xsmall_xlarge

Sintija Jurkevica and Jonathan James

The struggle of understanding sexuality begins to muddle even before sexual orientation can be defined. Some sources describe it as a person’s capacity to have erotic experiences and responses. However, in general, sexual orientation or preference, can be defined as “the sex (biological aspects of maleness and femaleness) of those whom one feels romantically and sexually attracted to”, where one’s sexual orientation may be categorised as heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, queer, pansexual, asexual or among others. However, categorisation of identifiable preferences is more nuanced than it appears; whilst some research may describe orientation as discrete categories, substantial evidence backs up the existence of a sexual continuum or spectrum.

But how does one develop a sexual preference? This riddle is a classic psychological argument of nature versus nurture: do the genes, the environment, or a mixture of them both influence one’s sexual attraction to others? This is obviously an ongoing debate and a matter of significantly more research. A recent September publication, composed by a psychology researcher Michael Bailey and his colleagues in the peer-reviewed journal of Psychological Science in the Public Interest, has been created with the intention of objectively reviewing previous scientific research on sexual orientation to draw impartial conclusions on the topic, without preconceptions of scientific biases and political influences.

Bailey’s review paper concluded that the non-social causes, such as the individual’s genetic make-up, play a larger role than environmental influences in establishment of one’s sexuality. The evidence, supporting such a claim, includes the genetic influences in twin studies and unchanged sexual orientation of infant boys after they are surgically or socially “converted” into girls. Bailey and colleagues also argue against the commonly assumed environmental causes of homosexuality to be weak and distorted in comparison to alternative explanations.

Various genetic hypotheses had been proposed to explain differences in sexuality. In several studies, it was found that a several different genetic markers (i.e. genetic elements) were more likely to be found in gay men in comparison to their straight counterparts. When this news was first published, it caused an outpouring in the media of the discovery of the so called ‘gay gene’, but the media failed to report one significant factor – genetic influences themselves cannot be used to determine predisposition to a trait. In other words, simply having a genetic element doesn’t automatically result in these individual’s sexual orientation. To make matters more complicated, scientists were unable to reproduce these findings in women for same sex attraction, suggesting that sexual orientation is a lot more complex than a few genetic differences.

Other scientists have conducted studies considering the seemingly well establish theory that each additional older brother increases the odds of a male being gay by approximately 33%, with something like 1 in 7 gay males holding their sexual orientation because of having older male siblings. These findings have been controversial, not least because there are several scientific studies that support these proposals, and several that have not found a link.

One attempt to explain this apparent causation is through the maternal immune response. Male fetuses produce H-Y antigens (small proteins) that play a role in sexual development in the womb (i.e. the development of male sex organs). In response to these antigens, the mother will sometimes produce an immune response, which gets stronger with each successive male fetus, resulting in decreased activity of these antigens in later males. One suggestion is that this results in less ‘mascularization’ of the male brain, resulting in the development of same sex attraction. The major flaw with this explanation is simple – the occurrence of the mother’s immune response is significantly lower than the prevalence of homosexuality, suggesting it cannot be the major cause.

The truth of the matter is, despite several attempts to better understand the genetics behind human sexual orientation, scientist know very little about what causes it, or even the true significance of any environmental factors. As Bailey concludes in his paper however, “Sexual orientation is an important human trait, and we should study it without fear, and without political constraint,” Bailey argues. “The more controversial a topic, the more we should invest in acquiring unbiased knowledge and science is the best way to acquire unbiased knowledge.” Therefore, we should look forward to developing a better understanding in the future, in the hope that a better understanding of ourselves, results in a better understanding of each other.

 

 

Sally Ride’s Space Legacy

220px-sally_ride2c_america27s_first_woman_astronaut_communitcates_with_ground_controllers_from_the_flight_deck_-_nara_-_541940Jonathan James

Sally Ride was an American physicist and astronaut, most famous for being the first American woman in space, in 1983, and the third woman in space behind Russian Cosmonauts Valentina Tereshkova and Svetlana Sativskaya. As well as being the youngest American to have travelled to space, at just 32, she is less well known for being the first known LGBT astronaut, a fact not revealed until after her death in 2012. Whilst having been married to fellow astronaut Steve Hawley from 1982 – 1987, her partner for the next 27 years would be Tam O’Shaughnessy, who she met when both were aspiring tennis players years earlier.

Ride joined NASA in 1978, having answered an advertisement in a newspaper for people to join the space programme. Prior to her first flight in 1983, she worked as a communicator for the second and third space shuttle flights and worked to develop the ‘Canadarm’ robot arm, used by space shuttles to deploy and recover deliveries. The flight in 1983 subjected her to a lot of media attention, mostly because of her gender. During one press conference, she was asked a series of extremely sexist question by the media, including whether she would cry if things went wrong, and whether the flight would damage her reproductive organs. Despite everything, Ride simply insisted she was an astronaut.

1200px-space_shuttle_challenger_2804-04-198329

The Challenger shuttle, moments before the horrific disaster.

On June 18, 1983, Ride because the first American woman in space as a crew member on the space shuttle Challenger. The crew deployed two communication satellites and carried out many drug experiments in space. Ride was the first woman to use a robotic arm in space. A year later, in 1984, Ride embarked on her second mission on the Challenger (sadly to be her last, following the Challenger disaster of 1986, which took place months before she was due to go to space again for a third time.) In total, Ride spent over two weeks in space.

Following the Challenger disaster, Ride moved from space flight to the political sphere, working on the Rogers Commission to investigate the reasons behind the disaster. Later, she would go on to found NASA’s Office of Exploration, which continues to lay the groundwork for much of NASA’s future exploration. She would also work with schools to encourage students to pursue careers in the space industry, contributing to seven short stories aimed at children, and spent some time as a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego.

10965745373_5e4232f1c3_h

Then US President Barack Obama, awarding Sally Rides posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom to her partner, Tam O’Shaughnessy.

Sally Ride’s legacy continues to this day – she has received several accolades both during her lifetime and posthumously. In 2013, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by then President Barack Obama. A year later, in 2014, she was induced into the Legacy Walk, an outdoor public display that celebrates LGBT history and people.

The Life of Leonardo Da Vinci

leonardo_da_vinci

Jonathan James

Leonardo da Vinci is the archetypal renaissance man, a master of painting, sculptor, architecture, invention, and engineering. His work, which spanned multiple disciplines, informed not just art and design, but also contributed greatly to our understanding of zoology, botany, biology, anatomy, engineering, and physics. He filled dozens of notebooks, which continue to surface to this day, containing hundreds if not thousands of drawings, sketches and ideas based on human anatomy, architecture, and mechanics. Whilst most of his work was not experimental – rather based on theoretical concepts, his work went into extreme detail, and provide some of the first explorations of many fields.

Under the apprenticeship of Andrea del Verrocchio, Da Vinci began what would become a lifelong appreciation of anatomy and physiology, which show up repeatedly in his notebooks; some of his most famous sketches include pictures of a foetus in a womb, the human brain and skull, and a series of topographic images describing muscles, tendons, and other visible anatomical features. It’s a common myth that to carry out these studies, Da Vinci stole corpses on which to perform illegal autopsies – the truth is much less exciting. He was in fact given permission, first by hospitals in Florence, and then later in Milan and Rome, to dissect human corpses. As well as studying ‘healthy’ specimens, disease also fascinated Da Vinci, being the first person to define atherosclerosis (thickening of the arterial wall) and liver cirrhosis, and is known to have constructed models that depicted the flow of blood through the vessels of the heart. His work was published in De humani corporis fabrica (The Human body) in 1543.

leonardo_da_vinci_-_superficial_anatomy_of_the_shoulder_and_neck_28recto29_-_google_art_project

Anatomical Drawings of the Neck and Shoulders

Perhaps Da Vinci’s most famous scientific exploits come from the field of Engineering. In 1488, he developed a design for a flying machine, whilst also developing plans for a parachute, giant crossbow, and what has been described a ‘tank’, but which represents a moveable cannon. He worked as an Engineer, when, in 1499 he was forced to flee to Venice, where he developed a system of moveable barricades to shield the city. He worked with Niccolo Machiavelli on a project to divert the flow of the Arno River near Florence, as well as a design, produced in 1502, of a 720-foot bridge developed for the Sultan of Constantinople intended to cross the mouth of the Bosporus, the straight that separates the bulk of Turkey from central Europe. Whilst never constructed, Da Vinci’s work would later be vindicated, when, in 2001, a bridge based on his design was constructed in Norway.

Da Vinci also worked in botany – where he paid attention to the action of light on plants. He also had an excellent understanding of geology, a particularly famous story exists of him frequently exploring caves around the Apennine mountain range. His observations of layered rock also convinced him the biblical story of the great flood could not be true. In addition, he was an accomplished cartographer, producing a map of Chiana Valley in Tuscany from eye, rather than using any modern surveying equipment. Elsewhere, he studied mathematics heavily, becoming particularly interested in geometric forms such as the rhombicuboctahedron, a 26-sided object made up of both square and triangular faces. An accomplished musician, Da Vinci also invented the viola organist, the first bowed keyboard instrument to ever be designed and developed.

leonardo_da_vinci2c_map_of_tuscany_and_the_chiana_valley

Map of the Chiana Valley, Tuscany.

Da Vinci kept his personal life very secret. As a result, his sexuality has been the subject of much analysis and speculation. Whilst he had few close relationships with women, his most intimate relationships are said to have been with his pupils Salai and Melzi. Court records from 1476 show that Da Vinci and three other young men were charged with sodomy – whilst the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence, there remains considerable speculation around his presumed homosexuality. In any case, the influence of Da Vinci cannot be understated; he made enormous contributions to a vast range of scientific disciplines, not to mention his artistic endeavors not mentioned here. As a result, to this day he remains an iconic figure and a key player in the Renaissance period.

A Profile of Margeret Mead

m mead

Rhiannon Freya Lyon

Born in the US, 1901, Margaret Mead is recognised as one of the most influential anthropologists of the 20th century, often seen as the woman who laid the foundation for second wave feminism and the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Through her studies of isolated civilisations in the South Pacific, Mead was a pioneer of the idea that behaviour is culturally learned rather than being innate. She specifically focused on gender roles (the expected behaviour of an individual based on their gender), and how these are greatly shaped by the society we grow up in.

During her early academic career, Mead was especially interested in studying cultures uninfluenced by Westernisation. This lead to her first pacific island field study in Samoa which largely consisted of interviews with adolescent girls, observations from which laid the grounds for her first book Coming of Age in Samoa, published in 1928. In this book she put forward the idea that Samoan cultures didn’t adhere as strictly to gender roles as the US: that adolescents had more freedom to explore their sexuality, that extra-marital sex was not so taboo, and that these attitudes lead to more healthy development. She put forward the controversial view that the Western way of doing things was not necessarily the best or most progressive way of doing things.

In 1935 Mead started digging into the differences in gender roles and temperament across different cultures in New Guinea, recorded in her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. She found that different cultures had different attitudes towards aggression and what the roles of men and women were in society. For example, the Arapesh people were peaceful and neither men nor women were involved in war. Contrary to this, among the Mundugumor people both men and women were involved in war. The women in the Tchambuli ethnic group were responsible for catching and trading of food, while the men were more involved in the politics of the tribe, with neither gender being dominant over the other. Mead found that across cultures men and women would be responsible for different things, but in general whatever the role of the man was, this was held more highly. This observation broke ground by separating the biological sex from a socially constructed gender.

During World War 2, access to the South Pacific was cut off and Mead’s focus therefore shifted to the US. During this time Mead and her former academic mentor Ruth Benedict founded The Institute for Intercultural Studies.

As with anything that challenges the status quo, Mead’s work attracted a lot of criticism. People did not like the idea that their ideas of gender and gender roles were not as set in stone as they may have thought. One of Mead’s most prominent critics was Derek Freeman, who was very determined to discredit her and her findings, publishing several books on her “hoaxing”. There are of course legitimate criticisms to make of Mead’s work, her downplaying of some of the negative elements of Samoan development for example. But Freeman’s criticisms went beyond this in his (somewhat successful) attempts to damage her reputation. His work has now by and large been rejected by the anthropological community, due to his unreliable methods and tendency to cherry-pick his data, while misrepresenting Mead’s work.

After the Second World War, Mead went back to New Guinea in order to study the impact of exposure to the wider world on the people living there as a result of war. She found that after contact with the wider world, societal ideas among previously cut-off cultures had changed.  This trip ended up informing her beliefs in the way cultural ideas shape social problems such as racism and disregard for the environment, and lead to her famous quote “never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has”.

Although her mother was a suffragist, Mead never publically labelled herself a feminist. She was however very outspoken on women’s equality and civil rights. Her work contributed to the rise of second wave feminism by focusing on how gender roles are shaped by the society you live in, rather than being inherent.

Later in life Mead became a curator for the American Natural History Museum, President of the American Anthropological Association, Vice President of the New York Academy of Sciences, and served various positions in the American Association for the Advancement of science. She was a public speaker and university lecturer, speaking on a wide variety of subjects. In total Mead authored 12 books, and co-authored many more. She is seen as being a very accessible writer and speaker, able to successfully engage with members of the general public to spread her ideas further than the circle of academia.

Mead said of relationships “one can love several people and that demonstrative affection has its place in different types of relationships”. This illustrates her views, unconventional at the time, and possibly even now, that romance need not be heterosexual or monogamous to be valid. These views were displayed in her own personal life, although her relationships with women were not public knowledge at the time. Mead had three successive husbands, the last of whom she had a child with; alongside her marriages she also had a long-term lover Ruth Benedict, her former mentor. She spent the later years of her life living with fellow anthropologist Rhoda Metraux, with whom she had a romantic relationship.

Over her lifetime Mead was awarded many accolades for her contributions to anthropology and wider society, including being posthumously awarded the Presidential Award of Freedom.