ASSOCIATIONS - People

• Dr. Michael S. Diamond (born 1964)     :

  • • [Dr. Michael S. Diamond (born 1964) said]:   "[My early work on Dengue virus] was done in [Dr. Eva Harris (born 1965)]’ lab just as she was starting her laboratory. I met [Dr. Eva Harris (born 1965)] through [Julie Louise Gerberding (born 1955)], who at the time was a was a faculty member at UCSF and later went on to be director of the CDC. Julie recommended that I talk to Eva because after doing my infectious disease clinical fellowship, I was interested in studying the immune basis of some pathogens in the context of global health. [...]. In [Dr. Eva Harris (born 1965)]’ lab, I worked, primarily in cell culture–based models, on understanding how innate immunity controlled Dengue virus and how Dengue virus could in theory evade some of those responses."      ( Source :  [HP00DF][GDrive] )

• Dr. Laura Dean Kramer (born 1946)]   : 

  • • [Dr. Michael S. Diamond (born 1964) said]:   "I came to Washington University in 2001. I was interviewing in about 2000, and, of course, in 1999, West Nile had just been entered into the United States in New York. There was a faculty member who was at UC Davis at the time (now in Albany), [Dr. Laura Dean Kramer (born 1946)], who collaborated with [Dr. Eva Harris (born 1965)]. Kramer, who is a mosquito specialist, and I had a conversation about what we thought might happen with West Nile virus.  "      ( Source :  [HP00DF][GDrive] )

• 
  

ASSOCIATIONS - Events

• [...]

Saved Wikipedia (March 21 2023) - "Eva Harris"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Harris

2023-03-21-wikipedia-org-eva-harris.pdf

https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-228-cal-bears-go-viral/

Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Britt Glaunsinger, and Eva Harris

Vincent visits the University of California at Berkeley and speaks with Britt Glaunsinger and Eva Harris about their work on Kaposi’s sarcoma associated herpesvirus and dengue virus.

Thanks to the Microbiology Graduate Students for hosting me at their annual symposium, and especially to Emma, Lisa, and Zoe for their wonderful hospitality during my stay.

Zika virus in Nicaragua with Eva Harris

9 November 2016 by Vincent Racaniello

I spoke with Eva Harris of the University of California, Berkeley, on the state of Zika virus in Nicaragua.

https://www.virology.ws/2016/11/09/zika-virus-in-nicaragua-with-eva-harris/ 

2016-11-09-youtube-american-society-of-microbiology-zika-virus-nicaragua-recorded-2016-09-20-1080p.mp4

Youtube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUU0SjPtO8s 

"1,787 views  Nov 9, 2016

Eva Harris, PhD, University of California, Berkley, is interviewed by Vincent Racaniello, PhD, Columbia University, New York, about the status of Zika virus in Nicaragua. Harris has developed a multidisciplinary approach to study the molecular virology, pathogenesis, immunology, epidemiology, clinical aspects, and control of the mosquito-borne diseases dengue, Zika, and chikungunya. Her work investigates viral and host factors that modulate disease severity and immune correlates of protection and pathogenesis, using in vitro approaches, animal models, and research involving human populations.

This interview took place at Boston University on September 20, 2016, at the Emerging Infectious Diseases A to Z (EIDA2Z) conference hosted by the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL). "

COnference started on Sep 16 2016...

https://www.bu.edu/ghblast/2016/09/16/symposium-on-emerging-infectious-diseases-from-a-to-z-eida2z-emerging-challenges-and-opportunities-2/  

Inaugural Symposium on Emerging Infectious Diseases from A to Z (EIDA2Z): Emerging Challenges and Opportunities

in Conferences/Seminars, Outside Announcements

September 16th, 2016

The symposium “Emerging Infectious Diseases from A to Z (EIDA2Z): Emerging Challenges and Opportunities” marks the inauguration of Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) to foster innovative interdisciplinary research on emerging pathogens in collaboration with local, national, and global academic and public health partners. Designed to advance knowledge to zero in on the gaps in current understanding of emerging infectious diseases, the EIDA2Z symposium will bring together leading international authorities in the field to chart future research needs in order to improve discovery, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of these global health problems.

A major scientific event is about to begin at BU when the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) hosts this inaugural symposium on Sunday at 3 p.m. at the George Sherman Union on the Charles River Campus. 

The symposium opens on Sunday September 18, 2016 at 3pm, with an extraordinary program for the general public to learn about the scientific challenges that emerging infectious diseases represent, and the challenges of clearly communicating complicated science and public health issues to the public. The speakers and panelists are all highly accomplished, internationally known leaders in science and scientific writing who will participate in an extended discussion with the general public to address questions and clarify current understanding of these challenges.  A reception following the program will provide additional opportunity for attendees to meet the speakers and panelists.

Keynote Talks

From AIDS to Zika: The Enduring Challenge of Emerging Infectious Disease                       Anthony Fauci, Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease

Scary Viruses in the Globalized World: Telling the Story                                                               David Quammen, author/essayist

Location

George Sherman Union, Charles River Campus, 775 Commonwealth Avenue

Feb 28 2021 TWIV - "TWiV 725: Eva Harris and Janet Smith clip flavivirus wings

February 28, 2021

Eva Harris and Janet Smith join TWiV to discuss how an antibody against dengue virus NS1 protein blocks endothelial dysfunction and the potential of treating infections by multiple flaviviruses." 

2001 (March 14) - UC Berkeley interview of Eva Harris - "Making Science Accessible"

Eva Harris - Professor of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

date  Mar 14, 2001

Conversations with History and Host Harry Kreisler welcome UC Berkeley Professor Eva Harris who discusses her work on the frontier of biological science her efforts to make science accessible, and her activism.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con0.html

Link to video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn34yEkdITY  

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-1.pdf

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-1-img-1.jpg

Conversations with History: Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

This interview is part of the Institute's "Conversations with History" series, and uses Internet technology to share with the public Berkeley's distinction as a global forum for ideas.

Welcome to a Conversation with History. I'm Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies. Our guest today is Eva Harris, who is an Assistant Professor in the Infectious Diseases Division of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, where she does research and teaching on Molecular Biology, Parasitology, and Virology.

She is the initiator and Director of the Applied Molecular Biology/Appropriate Technology Transfer Program (AMB/ATT) and organizer and instructor of eleven of its workshops. President of the Sustainable Science Institute, she is a recipient of the MacArthur "Genius" Award and is the author of numerous scientific papers and a book, A Low-Cost Approach to PCR: Appropriate Transfer of Biomolecular Techniques.

1. Background ... influence of parents and their friends ... reaching own conclusions ... foreign languages ... mentors ... inventiveness

2. Access and Science ... imbalance of resources ... progressive politics ... dignity and justice

3. The Beauty of Science ... the harmony of the cell ... reconciling research and activism ... politics of science ... science and values ... the DNA revolution ... PCR ... the fight against infectious disease

4. Technology Transfer ... how to bring science to real-world problems ... going to Nicaragua ... epiphany: simplifying technology ... international interest in the project ... the MacArthur award

5. Research on an Infectious Disease ... dengue ... starting from scratch ... creating a base for international education ... field work

6. Implications for Human Rights ... infectious disease as a human rights issue ... forensic human rights applications ... critical matter of quality control

7. Lessons Learned ... science and activism ... ethical issues ... access ... women in science ... going for what you believe in

© Copyright 2001, Regents of the University of California

Photos by Jane Scherr. Site questions: Email iis_webmgr at berkeley.edu.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170122/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con1.html 

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con1-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.pdf

Page 1 of 7

Background

Eva, welcome to Conversations with History.

Thank you, Harry.

Tell us a little about your background. Where were you born and raised?

I was born in New York City and raised between New York and Paris, actually, so maybe that was right in the middle of the ocean! I grew up and did high school in New York, but went back and forth between the two cultures.

How did your parents shape your character, do you feel, in retrospect?

I would say my parents and also all of their friends ... I am an only child, and it was a really wonderful group of people who were their core friends in Europe, which is why we spent a lot of time there. So, for instance, one of the women who helped raised me fought in the Russian Revolution, as well as people who had been in the French Resistance and in the German Syndicalist movement. I was very struck by their hearts of gold. People had given everything and risked their lives for other people. That made a big impression.

My parents believed in me and let me do everything I wanted. I was an overachiever on my own, so they were always hoping I would fail at something once in a while. I grew up without a TV and so I read like a maniac. And that was just wonderful.

It sounds like diversity and multiculturalism came like mother's milk in this setting.

Yes, it did. And reading. I remember when I was ten or so, I read all the classics -- Orwell, and All Quiet on the Western Front. I always felt that even though I had a lot of politics around my life, I came to my own conclusions that, essentially, war is bad, and money's bad; you know, things like that. That was from my perspective as a six-year-old. I feel like I came to that on my own, even though, of course, it was within this context of [my parents and their friends].

Were either of your parents scientists?

Both are, to a certain extent, but not in the biological sciences. My father is an applied mathematician and linguist. He actually founded the field of linguistics in this country in the thirties and forties at the University of Pennsylvania. He is kind of a generalist, as we're talking about that. It was just really wonderful. I spent a lot of time conversing with him about many, many things.

And your mother?

My mother is a computer scientist and linguist, and has worked on natural language processing and in medical informatics, and has broken through in her own way.

I get the sense that in your work, your knowledge of many languages is important. Did it just come naturally in this environment and with these genes that you have that great facility with languages? When did that begin?

My first language was English and then French. But when I was very little, I had also had a Spanish influence. And I forgot my Spanish when I learned French. But it must have stuck in the back of my brain because I only formally learned Spanish when I was twenty-two and I spent five weeks in Spain. Then I went straight to Nicaragua and started teaching, and became fluent immediately. They always say it's very important to have your children exposed early [to foreign languages].

We'll see later that it became very important in your work. Any particular mentors besides, obviously, your parents, either when you were young or later in college, who made a difference?

I did my undergraduate degree at Harvard but I did different summer projects. I met a really great person, his name is Jeff Schatz, who is an important scientist at the University of Basil. I did my undergraduate thesis in his lab when I was in Harvard, and he was wonderful. He was a real human being who was a scientist, and he was a great violinist. He had done some work in Guatemala. I remember him using aquarium pumps to run gels and things like that. That was where I got my first idea that this whole kind of work that I've done later in my life might be possible. So he was a role model for me.

As a young person, did you do a lot of tinkering around the house? There is that kind of inventive, making-it-up-as-you-go-along ethos that I find in your book, when you're describing how the PCR technology could be adapted to different settings.

As an only child, I did a lot of reading and a lot of crafts. So I wasn't really tinkering mechanically, but I made tons of things. I think that element that you're referring to is really just trying to demystify and break down complicated technologies and make them accessible. So that's the motor behind that, to make things accessible to low-resource communities. And yes, I like to make things.

Next page: Access and Science

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170128/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con2.html

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con2-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.pdf

Page 2 of 7

Access and Science

Now, along this line, a word that comes up in your work -- or, not a word, but a modality -- is access. It strikes me that there are two components to that in your work. One is understanding, explication, making clear. And I'm wondering if this multicultural experience made it natural for you to do that?

I've never really thought of it that way. It's just that I feel like we have so many resources here and so much need there in the rest of the world -- how to bridge that? How to make it accessible? And that's almost a political motivation, rather than a linguistic one. Although, maybe, having all that linguistics in the family also did something.

So what were the politics that you grew up with that made you sensitive to ideas of equality and redistribution and so on?

Basically, very progressive, left, radical, but very non-dogmatic. So it was, essentially, the Worker's Council movement. Some of the early movements that [believed that] the idea of a worker-run, rational, humane society could somehow be possible.

The other component of access in your work is a respect for the dignity of the recipient country. That, "Okay, we have this technology we're going to transfer"; but what is the situation in the country? What can they do? How can they work around their situation to incorporate that? Where does that notion come from?

Again, it's these same very simple principles of human dignity and justice. Everything is based on that.

Next page: The Beauty of Science

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170135/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con3.html

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con3-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20100711124209im_/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/images/DNA-amp.gif

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con3-dna-amp-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.gif

Page 3 of 7

The Beauty of Science

Going into science, when did that magic moment happen? Was it at Harvard?

I struggled a lot with my major at Harvard because I'm interested in everything from political economy to French literature, and I minored in art history. All of this was very interesting to me, and I had a hard time deciding. But science is such a huge area that I felt that all the courses I took added into one pile. So I took half of my courses in science, and that made one large element. And then the rest of my courses in everything else, like all the humanities.

One of the things that really moved me or drew me to science, and this is a little off the wall, was the way the cell works. For me, it's absolutely a beautiful system that I see as a model for human society. Because if you understand how all the molecules work [you see that] there's this incredible energy conservation. There's a feedback loop that actually works. All the elements work together for the greater good of the whole. All of these really beautiful principles are played out, and that's how we are able to exist, all organisms. There are so many kind of mottoes that we dream about in a just, human world, [which] are actually being played out every instant in our own bodies. So I was really drawn to the beauty and the harmony of molecular and cellular biology.

That's interesting, because most people think of science as cold and distant, and inhuman, in a way. Whereas, you're suggesting that, if you see the simplicity and the beauty, it inspires the way you think about the world and the way you act in the world.

Yes, it's incredible. [When] you get into how molecules and cells know what to do, it's gorgeous. And especially [with] infectious diseases. Boy, when we get to that, it's really exciting. I mean, [parasites and viruses] are so cool, you know. It's really wonderful [to study them]!

So the dichotomy between research and activism is not inevitable, it's what you see and the way you act on it?

Kind of. What I just described to you is kind of a vision. But then, I was stuck with the reality of science and the lab, and I was an activist in college. It was the 1980s -- Central America -- and I was at Harvard during the divestment issue -- South Africa. And so, [science and activism] were very separate. There was my work in the lab, and then the work in the streets.

But my dream was somehow to bring them together, to bring my politics into my work. And, again, I'm being much more forthright in our interview now than I am usually, because I came to the point where I would talk about it as "science for [infectious disease] research in developing countries." Anyone who wanted to read between the lines could read between the lines. And if not, it was just, "Isn't this nice, bringing science to the people," in a very generic way.

It's important that we emphasize that you're not saying that whatever values you have affect your science. You're still doing the science. It's really about what you see, once you've done the science in a very scientific way.

Absolutely. It's for whoever wants to pick up on that. And it's my motivation. But I don't bring it out into the forefront. So, it's objective science. These people come to our courses. They come from all walks of life, from all political backgrounds, whatever they want. They learn, and we are very professional; certainly in my work here (basic research) as well as in the technology transfer issues. But what's underneath it is empowerment. It's not just about giving someone a few pipette tips or tubes or whatever. It's about learning. It's about transferring the knowledge. It's about transferring the decision-making capability to say, "Yes, we want to do that technology. Or we don't. But it's our choice here, not because it's being imposed from the North or anywhere else." Essentially, it's what you read into it.

What does it take to be a biological scientist? It sounds like you have to be inventive. It sounds like you have to persevere. What other characteristics, virtues, are part of the business?

Well, again, not to be too idealistic; I mean, my path is quite unusual. Really, in academic science, it's pretty narrow, and you have to be incredibly good in your field, and be politically savvy, and go to the right meetings and talk to the right people and make the right connections and all that stuff. But I hate to look at things that way. I just can't. It seems too utilitarian. I choose to ignore it, and probably to my own detriment.

I need to see a value system and a motivation that's beyond my own career. Not to put other people down, but generally, people are successful because they are interested in the science and also their egos to a certain extent. So the most successful people are the people who know how to work the system and who are good. I mean, you have to be good to succeed. The more specialized one can be is what's selected by the system.

Of course, I like to be good at what I do, but I see it much more as an interdisciplinary approach to life and to science, which is difficult, because one has to be successfullymultidisciplinary. People kind of bandy that word about, but what it means is being excellent in a number of fields. And if you can't do that, then you have to know whom to collaborate with.

The biological revolution is raising a lot of ethical issues about what a human being is, what we can create, who patents the rights, who gets access to the material. Has it been important for you that you come to science with a value system?

It certainly is important to me. It's interesting; I find that the people who are drawn to my lab, even the basic research graduate students, have a value system inside them, which is what I love, because that's what I want to perpetuate. Even if they don't speak Spanish or they're not going to go out into the field or revolutionize the world or whatever, they still have this side that cares about the rest of the world.

Is that because it's the School of Public Health that you teach?

Partly yes, because we have access to more students who have a value system. But also because that's what I do and people know about it. But of course, when I give seminars, it's pure science. So I can masquerade as a pure scientist also.

As you made this career charge and got into the biological sciences, how important was the revolution in science with regard to DNA?

Essentially, it made everything possible much faster. I did my Ph.D. here in Molecular and Cell Biology and I worked in yeast genetics. Yeast is this gorgeous system where you can do anything, because it's been worked out for you and you can move really quickly. So I had a very nice experience where I had a very solid training in all aspects of molecular and cell biology at my fingertips. And now I've been able to use all that to research little-known viruses, and also in the technology transfer area, and base it on that [training]. And that's all possible because, essentially, when I started, all fields were merging -- DNA and biochemistry and ...

And the key to this is PCR [polymerase chain reaction]. Explain to us what that is.

PCR is the revolution that came along in 1987 or so. There was the molecular biology revolution, which was earlier, the sixties and seventies.

Which is the discovery of DNA.

DNA and restriction enzymes and cloning and all that. PCR was invented in this country in approximately 1987, and it's a method for amplifying, or multiplying, a single copy of DNA billions of times, so that you can visualize it, and then work with it. There are myriad examples for its use in the basic sciences. It's very useful for detection in what we call diagnostics, as well as for characterizing organisms, or anything that has a DNA or RNA genome. So it's an incredibly versatile technique. And I saw that as a way to put into practice this philosophy of technology transfer, and so used it as such in the field of infectious diseases.

Let me clarify one thing for people who, like me, aren't scientists. What you're doing is taking a little strand, and by creating many copies, you are able to amplify what you see. Is that a fair way to say what this is all about?

Yes. DNA is obviously very, very small, and we can't work with individual molecules. And so, by taking a specific piece of it and copying just that piece billions of times, suddenly you have workable material, either to see, like, "Does this sample of someone's blood contain the DNA of this virus?" Then we would say: if it does, then they're infected with it; if it doesn't, then they're not. So something that straightforward. Or, it allows you to work with the DNA. So then, you say, "Okay, I want to amplify this piece [of DNA] billions of times. Now I can get enough of it to physically pick it up and put it in a tube and, say, clone it or sequence it." It's a way to get or grab hold of DNA, and the beauty or the revolutionary aspect is that you can design what piece you're going to look at, and then get enough of it to do something with it.

Now, let's do a specific example. In the introduction to your book, Professor Riley comments on a case in Nicaragua where there was a mini-epidemic. And it was thought that it was dengue, but, in fact, using this technique, it was discovered that it was actually leptospira. Is that right? So by bringing this technology, implementing it, you're making quite a difference. For this particular disease, there was an antibiotic.

Right. What we're doing is bringing the technology to places that didn't have it otherwise, but with the knowledge of when to use it and when not to use it. I just have to add as a caveat, because PCR has become so trendy -- when I first started, ten or fifteen years ago, nobody [in the countries where I was working] knew what DNA was and nobody knew what to do. Then with PCR everyone thought, "This is what it's all about." Well, within about three or five years, PCR had become so trendy and so commercialized that I spent most of my time saying, "No, no, no, no. You don't have to use it here." You have to understand what both the advantages and the limitations are.

But one of the great things that we've been able to do, for example in this case, is to allow people to diagnose and to understand when something is there. Meaning: this is dengue. But it's equally important to understand when it's not a particular infectious disease. And that's what happened in this particular epidemic you referred to in Nicaragua, where everyone thought it was dengue. When we looked for the genome of dengue virus, it wasn't there. That showed us that it was not dengue. Now, they weren't able, using this, to find out what it was, but it raised a red flag, and medical and scientific professionals came to Nicaragua from the international community and were able to find out, "Oh, yes, this in fact is a bacterial disease called leptospirosis." And that actually put this new disease on the map. And now the CDC has an entire branch devoted to it and it's now recognized as a major emerging disease in its own right.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170042/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con4.html

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con4-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170051im_/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/images/Nicaragua1.jpg

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con4-img-nicaragua1-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.jpg

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170055im_/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/images/Ecuador1.jpg

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con4-img-ecuador1-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.jpg

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170042im_/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/images/Bolivia1.jpg

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con4-img-bolivia1-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.jpg

Page 4 of 7

Technology Transfer

You went to graduate school and, while in graduate school or before, you developed your own program, which is a technology transfer program in which PCR is brought to the world. How did that come about? Was it just natural for you to make this major leap as a lowly graduate student?

It's funny, because now I can look back-- hindsight's great -- and I can say, "Oh, look at this nice story," and I can make it seem as if I knew what I was doing. In fact, most of the time I was just going forward blindly, following a vision. I loved lab work and I mentioned that I loved the biology and the molecular, blah, blah, blah, etc. But then, I graduated from Harvard with a degree in biochemical sciences, and I thought, "What does this mean in the world?" I had a vision, but I wanted to have my hands in the world, in the real world. "How do I bring science to real-world problems?" It was completely unclear how to do that.

There's international health. You become a doctor and you have skills that are useful in the rest of the world, in developing countries and what-not. But when you're a scientist, what do you do? I wanted to create what I call "international science." And so what happened was that I took a year off. Even though I had gotten all these fellowships and I'd gotten into all these universities for grad school, I decided to stop and take a year off. I was naïve; all I knew was that I wanted to try and do something with science somewhere where it mattered. I had done a lot of traveling in my life, but never in the developing world. I didn't want to go as a tourist; I wanted to go to work. I had organized enough demonstrations that I felt like, "Okay, the next step is for me to go somewhere and put my money where my mouth is." And so all that kind of came together -- I went to Nicaragua, where at the time, you were able to volunteer -- so I worked for a while.

This would have been what years, by the way?

In 1988. I decided to go, and I said, "I want to work in science." I went with an organization, nominally, that placed computer people for two weeks. I said, "Well, I have three months and I want to do biological science." Nobody knew what to do with me. I learned Spanish in Spain, which, of course, was Castillano Spanish, so by the time I got to Nicaragua, I felt like I'd learned the wrong language. But anyway, I just got plopped down in the Ministry of Health -- there are roosters running everywhere, and there's a war going on, and I've been trained in Paris, and was schooled in Harvard -- it was the most frightening experience of my life, that I actually had to teach these people, who were running their lives and their revolution.

So you could make the transition from the salon to the labs very easily, by rolling up your sleeves and remembering what you learned.

Absolutely. So that [transition to the developing world] was a real eye-opener. But the point was that I was moved by the urgency of the issues there. And so when I came back and started graduate school, all I knew was that there was so much research and knowledge here and so little there, I had to be involved, somehow, in transferring it. So that was the vision. It was completely unformed.

I stated to my future mentors that I was going to keep doing this, period, and I would join their lab if they were fine with it, and I wouldn't if they weren't. And they were like, "Okay." So while I was in graduate school, doing a yeast genetics Ph.D., I was going down and learning about infectious diseases and trying to support what these people were doing in the Ministry of Health [in Nicaragua]. Then PCR was invented right at that time. And, all of a sudden ... I don't want to go too much into the story, but essentially, it kind of all came together.

Then it turned out that they didn't want me to just support what they were already doing; they wanted to learn molecular biology. I said, "Well, that's great. But, you know, there's barely running water here." And then it was this philosophical dilemma: if someone doesn't have the ability to do something, can you just say, "Well, you shouldn't learn about it?" Or do you say, "Okay, I'll teach you, but you can't do it?" At that point, PCR was simple enough that we thought, "Wow! Maybe we could do this here. And maybe there's an application to their own problems," which was detecting microorganisms, infectious pathogens.

And so we started it. The first time was just this incredible experience, where we were able, without much running water and with intermittent electricity, to manually amplify and see a band of DNA. It was just this moment that will live in my mind forever. Very exciting.

So this is a creative moment for you ...

Totally.

... where it all came together. What, exactly, is coming together? It is the notion that, here's the technology that it can be implanted or placed in a ...

Simplified.

... simplified in a developing country. And you do that by adapting to the social and economic conditions that are there.

Right. Essentially, demystifying and breaking down this supposedly sophisticated technology such that it can be done under these conditions. And you do that by working it out under these conditions and applying it to local problems.

And problems, say, of infectious disease?

Exactly.

So, suddenly, going back to that example we talked about before, you can suddenly say, "Oh, using PCR, [we see that] this infectious disease is not what we thought it was."

This is what we thought. And we discovered new diseases by using this technology onsite. So yes, that was an epiphany, where it actually worked.

What were your feelings? Give me a greater sense of that. Is it you're suddenly seeing that same simplicity and beauty that you saw in the cell, but in a social setting?

Maybe. Essentially, what you're seeing is a band of DNA. And you're just like, "Wow!" There was this hubbub and everyone was so excited, and everyone pushing each other to look through the goggles and see the DNA. Suddenly it just became, "This is possible!" I mean, it was just that, "Ah!" And everyone loved it. So I kept organizing these little courses [in molecular biology].

But then I finished my Ph.D. and I was supposed to go on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at Stan Falcow's lab at Stanford, who's an incredible scientist. He is the father of microbial pathogenesis. I thought, "This is so beautiful, and I can use the genetics I learned in yeast, but in infectious disease problems." But I decided to take a year off, because by then, I had given talks at international conferences, and there were all these other countries clamoring to do this in their own country. And I thought, "Well, I can't just go on with my career and ignore all this excitement that we've engendered, so I'll take a year and make good on my promises, and then go back to my scientific life."

After a year of investing in this and doing another set of workshops in Ecuador, it just kind of snowballed and it got written up in Science magazine. And hundreds of people wrote, people from here, from there: "Can you give ... " It got completely out of control. It was so urgent and exciting and gripping that I just cancelled my post-doc and went with this thing, and ...

And wrote a book at this point, right?

Well, actually, later on. I just kind of went with it. I was really lucky to have someone supporting me at UCSF, who said, "Why don't you just do this in a coherent fashion -- create a program of technology transfer that incorporates the kind of sustainability and vision that you see fit?"

Of course, I did that in total collaboration with all my Latin American colleagues, and came up with something, which was this AMB/ATT [Applied Molecular Biology/Appropriate Technology Transfer] program that you mentioned, which is completely virtual. It was just me and hordes of volunteers from here, from there, from other countries. We had this wonderful thing going, but no money for ten years. I finally was running out of any resources because it was beyond itself. And then, right then, when I really didn't know how I was going to pay the rent and was on my way to Bolivia anyway, I got a call on my way to the airport that I got the MacArthur award. So that was just an incredible moment.

Which is the "genius" award, which is a recognition for the work you're doing, but allows you to be self-sustaining financially.

Exactly.

But as you're describing this, I'm reminded of your description earlier of what you saw when you were exposed to the world of cells and the beauty of that world. Now in the technology transfer work, you're actually creating an equally beautiful world in international society.

Yes, you're right. And by addressing public health issues where there's not a lot of funding, you essentially self-select for people who have a value system and really care about people, and are willing to work hard, not for their own profit. It was just beautiful, because I would get the best people, la crème de la crème, people who were dedicated to bettering humankind in whatever country, whether it was here, because they wanted to help, or there, because they're willing to devote themselves to projects over and above their own work to further infectious disease work in their own country to deal with the pressing problems. It was wonderful and I loved it, and I wished that it could go on forever, but you need resources. And so I knew during this whole time that I had to eventually pick a pathogen and start a whole basic research program at a university.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170107/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con5.html

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con5-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.pdf

Page 5 of 7

Research on an Infectious Disease

Which was the lucky pathogen that your research focused on?

Dengue virus, which was a whole issue, because, honestly, my training was in yeast and then parasites. I thought I'd go on with [parasites]; but dengue virus is exploding in Latin America, and there's very little work being done on it.

It's a devastating, chronic condition.

It's a virus that's transmitted by mosquitoes, and 2.5 billion people are at risk for this disease because of the distribution of the mosquito ... including the whole southeast of the United States, I might add. There are a 100 million cases of dengue fever annually, which is a very debilitating, although self-limited disease. There's a worse flavor of this same disease called dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome. And that can be fatal, if untreated, and there's really only supportive treatment. We don't understand why some people get this devastating disease and others don't. There's very little research done, because it's not a U.S. problem for the most part.

It's caused by a mosquito?

It's transmitted by a mosquito; it's a virus that causes it. Everyone said, "Eva, work on this. You always said you were going to follow the urgency." I said, "I'm not a virologist"; then I said, "Well, I guess, I'm going to become one." You know, "Roll up your sleeves and let's do it." I decided to build the lab from scratch because nobody works on this virus in this area. It's all pretty much army, navy, CDC stuff, because it was originally in Southeast Asia; so there was military interest. I didn't want to work in a military environment. I decided to just start from scratch, and so I did.

All of this came together at the same time when I was being recruited by UC Berkeley's School of Public Health, on both the science platform and, to a certain degree, the international work. Although, truly what matters here is publications, grants, that's what you need to get tenure. So it's again, these two lives. I've had to split off the applied work to a large extent to be able to concentrate and create a basic research laboratory, where I can do the publications and research, and get the kind of grants that I need to maintain this setup at the university. For that reason, we founded a nonprofit organization, Sustainable Sciences Institute in San Francisco, to do a lot of the applied work.

With this dengue virus, the goal is to discover its workings so that it could ultimately be eradicated.

There are two things that we're working on. One is to have a resource base here, where, for instance, I'm co-director with a colleague in my division of an international research and training grant in emerging infectious diseases, which is one of the few training and international grants that the NIH supports. With that, we've been able to fund overseas projects for the first time in our lives. We have a number of our colleagues, scholars, come and visit the lab here and learn more and go back. So it's been really great, because I can see how much people can learn here. We are able to strengthen scientific capability overseas by rotating people through the lab here, which means you have to have a lab here. You have to be able to write the grants [for international work], and to do that, you need to have a basic research grant as the "parent grant." So there is a complicated strategic or logistic aspect to it.

What we do, also, is field work. We do field epidemiological studies, and we make new DNA-based techniques that will work under [resource-poor] conditions to type organisms. So this is the applied science aspect of my work. At the same time we try to understand, how does this virus work? How does the replication work? What kind of proteins can we target for anti-viral therapies? We're testing certain anti-viral compounds to see if they are effective against dengue virus. If we understand how the virus replicates, we can identify pieces of the virus which are important to knock out, to create an attenuated strain for a vaccine. So that is the basic science aspect.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con6.html

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con6-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.pdf

Page 6 of 7

Implications for Human Rights

Let's talk a little about human rights. I think that many of the socialist countries and the Left think of human rights in terms of guaranteeing social rights, like the right to health, which is clearly your work in infectious disease. Another component of human rights is ensuring civil rights, political rights. This technology, the PCR, raises interesting questions about its use in forensic work, in situations of identifying people who have been, say, kidnapped by authoritarian regimes and lost their children and are trying to find them, or people who have actually been killed and their relatives would like to close the book on their lost beloved ones. Talk a little about the implications of the PCR technology for this kind of work. Will it work in these areas? Could the same lab be used to do this kind of DNA fingerprinting?

Yes. And let me just say one thing before that. There's a broader human rights aspect to this, which is transferring knowledge and empowering people, developing scientific capabilities so the local scientific communities can address relevant issues. Infectious diseases is a human rights issue because of economic and political factors that create infectious disease problems for the poor end of the spectrum. So there's a lot to just being able to deal with major infectious diseases locally, and to addressing economic and social issues. So dealing with infectious diseases is addressing human rights issues in a broad sense.

Now, in terms of actual identification of the disappeared, identity restoration, yes, it is the same technique. From very early on, people were always interested in forensic applications. But my caveat, and I say this both with DNA forensic work and also with HIV, is that it's so loaded. I mean, your results are so politically and individually, personally loaded that you have to be very, very careful. I've personally stayed away from that because, you know, it's one thing to say, "This water has cholera" -- or "it doesn't" -- and what if you realize you're wrong? Hopefully [that doesn't happen], and we put all our quality control into it so that people know when they're doing something right or wrong. But the point is, if you somehow made an error and you told someone, "You have HIV" -- or, "You don't" -- or, "This person is your daughter" -- or "isn't"; that's heavy-duty. You have to be incredibly careful about that kind of work.

With my book, for instance, people have always said, "Oh, we want to do PCR." It is very simple, but it's not a question of just sending out some reagents and someone's just going to do it. You have to understand the technique to do it correctly. And you have to understand how to avoid false positives and false negatives, and how to do internal quality control ... and so it's really a whole package. Now, somebody who's dedicated to this can learn how to do it, but they need to take it very seriously, and, essentially, be able to assure the right quality control. For instance, with forensics I would say, "I don't like kits, but in this condition, you're probably better off using a kit because that assures its own quality control." Or making a contact with the company and getting a licensing agreement with them, because somebody else is going to back you up on the determination.

When you say "kit," what exactly do you mean? Using a kit rather than building a whole lab?

A kit is, essentially, an expensive way of doing a test where it comes ready-made, and, for instance, you add 3 micrograms of this or you add A and B and you get blue, which means "yes."

I see, I see. So like a cookbook, almost?

Yes, but you don't know what went on. It's very anti-knowledge transfer because you're just doing something completely technically, without any concept of what's going on. And, of course, the company is trying to protect the knowledge because that's their intellectual property. And it's often, maybe, thirty to one hundred times more expensive than the actual price of the components. But what you're paying for is quality control and somebody, essentially, being responsible for the results, other than you.

If you're going to do it without the kits, then you have to make sure that you are able to stand by the quality of the work you do. And there's a lot of ways to do that and it's possible to do it. But it's just very, very important that people understand that if they're going to do something which has that kind of a weighty consideration, and everything riding on it, then they have to be damned sure that they're doing it correctly, and that they're understanding the whole picture and how to do this technology properly, and not just, "Oh, I can make this DNA amplify." So there's a big caveat. Although, when people have the appropriate expertise, it's absolutely possible to use exactly the same machines, the same technology, and apply it to identity restoration, paternity testing, all these different situations requiring establisment of human identity.

But you're suggesting that, coming out of this tradition and commitment of yours, respecting the dignity of the social and economic and political situation that you're working in when you do transfer, you're suggesting that there is a caveat, which is that when you move into this forensic area, there is a real red flag concerning all the levels of emotion, political and social conflict, that would be the consequences of not doing this right, or not understanding the flow or the context.

Yes. When we do any kind of transfer, we make sure the people are trained, in terms of the knowledge behind it and how to do quality control, and, essentially, how to do the technique correctly. No matter what. But it becomes even more important [with forensic issues], so we just want to make sure that people understand that it's not just, "Oh, no problem. One, two, three, and there you go." I mean, you can do one, two, three, and get a band. But if you're going to really institute this in any format, you have to make sure that you're doing it right. So, I just want people to understand that it's very important.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170112/http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Harris/harris-con7.html

2001-03-14-univ-california-berkley-edu-conversations-with-history-harris-con7-from-waybackmachine-2011-06-29.pdf

Page 7 of 7

Lessons Learned

We're touching on something very important about scientists or researchers who get involved in activism. We know that activist scientists, physicians, were very important in the dialogue with the Soviet Union in changing or trying to affect the arms race. Let's talk a little about being in the realm of the biological sciences. How do you navigate this area between science into activism? What are the caveats? What are the opportunities? How should we think about that?

We, in general, or me, in particular?

We, but with your personal insights.

It's interesting. This came up when we had a discussion with some of the other MacArthur Fellows. There's a group of us who got it at the same time, and we were talking about science and activism. And one of the Fellows was from a European background and said that if you're a scientist or a professional in Europe and you don't take a stand on something, you're considered a lightweight and no one will even listen to you. In the United States, if you're a scientist and you take a stand, no one will listen to you. It's an incredible thing in this country, where as soon as you become an advocate or take a stand on an issue, you "lose your objectivity" and people will no longer respect your science. You have to be very careful to maintain "objectivity" to be considered a scientist, to have people respect your work. So it's quite a slippery path.

For me, personally, as a scientist, I stick to the science. I really like being on this campus in the School of Public Health, where I can actually, for the first time, teach courses or, in my talks, bring in some of the political, social, economic aspects of this work as well. And almost openly. This is a whole new phenomenon. And I'm being very open here.

But, obviously, I do my science and I'm very, very interested in the dengue virus and how it works in the cell. I mean, I'm fascinated by it, which is why I do it. I haven't even mentioned that aspect because we're talking about this whole other aspect of my work. But I think you have to be careful in this country. Although I think that it's very important that scientists do take a stand, we are responsible, fundamentally, for what we do.

This question is raised in the movie Mind Walk, with Liv Ullman: How responsible are scientists for their work? And what about the ethical consequences? It's incredibly important. In this day and age, especially with the human genome and patenting, it's terribly important. The social and political consequences of science are lagging decades behind where technology is, and it's terribly dangerous. Scientists have to come out more and take responsibility, even though this country pushes people not to do it.

What I hear you saying is that you have to retain the integrity of the scientific work, but in moving into other areas, you have to appreciate the complexity of the social and political reality, as you bring your values to bear to bring that scientific truth into the social and political realm. Is that a fair summary?

Yes, I think so. For instance, in one's particular realm and one's discipline, one has to be objective and have a solid base to stand on. But I also think it's very important for scientists and academics to step out of the ivory tower. We are in a community. We're in a domestic community. We're in a global community. I can't stand this thinking that the world ends at the gates of the university, which is the way most academicians approach the world. I think that's dangerous. I think we have a commitment. We are getting tax dollars for our research and we need to give something back to this country and to this world. I think that we're incredibly privileged to have the life that we do, and to be able to do interesting work. We complain about it in our various little ways, but we're incredibly lucky, and we owe it to the world to give something back. Most people don't see that, and I think it's really important to see that. That's the general aspect.

But also with our own science, people have to take a stand. DNA is being patented in the most abhorrent way. I mean, you can't patent DNA just because you sequenced it! And you can't block diagnostics being available at low cost to the rest of the world because you own the patent on a piece of DNA that you didn't invent. It's disgusting. And it's going on. All these ramifications of the patenting issue on DNA, in the international arena, on the TRIPS agreements, and nobody understands what's going on. It's terrifying. So something I try to do with my classes is to make the students aware of what's going on, patenting biologicals, and agriculture, and all these kinds of issues. It's far from what I'm actually doing in the lab, of course, but it's something which I think scientists need to do -- to move into the ethical realm to a larger extent.

We're going back to your theme of access, and one of the keys to access is public understanding of the issues. It seems that your work and your journey, thus far, raise a lot of interesting questions about science and about international cooperation. What insights would you like students to draw from the kinds of things we've talked about?

[I give] a lot of outreach talks entitled "Science across Borders." Frontiers --not just geographical frontiers, but gender issues, economic issues. Science is a great way to break down boundaries. We do science in an international community, and we have to continue fostering that spirit. And it's great. When you look at papers, there's all these crazy names from all over the world. It's fun -- even basic research is an international endeavor, to a large extent, in terms of not having boundaries. It's an exciting area for a number of reasons, and I think that people need to bring the social context to science. Of course, young people coming into the field can carry that with them, more than the people who are already set in their ways.

The hope of this movement from science to the society is to change society for the better.

Yes. Certainly, even in the most narrow definition, to eradicate disease, which is huge in and of itself. And then, of course, there's all the other kinds of bonds, the international collaborations that can be made, the empowerment. And not just internationally. Right into Oakland, for instance. We can start right here in our backyard. There are a lot of positive messages that can come through this.

Is there a particular thing that you would say to women who think about going into science, either about the obstacles you had to overcome or what women can bring to science?

I'm probably going to be disappointing to you, but I don't feel like I've had obstacles in being a woman. There are obstacles -- and I haven't resolved them -- in bridging academic, science, and social issues. In what I'm trying to do, I feel like the jury's still out. Not knowing if you will get tenure is hard. It's not like I have a beaten track, I can say, "Hey everyone, follow this." It would be an issue for anyone trying to do this, as opposed to women in particular. But that is a challenge and I encourage people to take it on.

One final question. I'm left with a sense that there is a way to bridge the search for scientific truth and a value-driven concern about what the world is and what it can become.

Yes. What I would say is hold on to your values and follow your passion. If you believe in something and you have a vision, just go for it. That's the most important thing. I could never have said exactly what I was going to do, but I knew that this vision was important and I was not going to let it go. There are a lot of people who feel things are important. You have to be good [at what you do], but if you believe in something, follow your passion. I think that that's the most important thing. Don't let go of values, because that's what's going to matter. You're the one who's going to live with it for the rest of your life. If you can hold on to good values and make a positive impact on the world, then everybody else is going to benefit.

On that note, Eva, thank you very much for taking the time to talk about your work. And thank you very much for joining us for this Conversation with History.

© Copyright 2001, Regents of the University of California