# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
Sanchez

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.headline
Kahoot: friendship: Elizabeth C. Stanton & Susan b. Anthony

# data[].attributes.subject
Kahoot: friendship: Elizabeth C. Stanton & Susan b. Anthony

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
https://kahoot.it/challenge/01824659?challenge-id=b7315510-3094-4580-a1fa-2599995b283e_1629675800577

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
1 - Character
Steve Hartman series
Isaac Murphy, 8th governor of Arkansas
2 - Empathy
Steve Hartman series
Eva Atwood, nurse from Springdale Arkansas
3 - Friendship
4 - Altruism
5 - Courage
6- Optimism
7 - Gratitude
8 - Honesty
9 - Purpose
10- Service
11- Fortitude
12- Compassion
13- Patriotism
14- Generosity
15- Enthusiasm
16- Responsibility
17- Encouraging
18- Reliable
19- Dedication
20- Supportive
21- Forgiveness
22- Accepting
23- Prompt
24- Interested in others
25- Authentic
26- Consistent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
from Berfields

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
https://kahoot.it/challenge/04979357?challenge-id=c7ce4cb6-9893-40cd-81fe-7c99d424d0c5_1676579983068

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As said by William Shakespeare, "Better three hours too soon than a minute too late".

Punctuality is very important in everyone's life. It is a key to success. Exceptional leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Sir M. Visvesvaraya, etc possessed this quality that made them different from others. Punctuality is generally defined as always showing up on time and doing the assigned work before time. A punctual person grows a lot in life. Punctuality blooms the personality of an individual. There are certain benefits of being punctual which are given below.

1. Building Self-Confidence- Always showing up on time will create a different image of a person in people's minds. It teaches the person to depend on himself/herself. The more a person will keep the promises, the more his/her self- confidence grows. The more his/her self- confidence grows, the more they will be having control of life under them. Hence, punctuality builds self-confidence.

2. Shows Willingness to Work- Being punctual shows the willingness of a person to work. If he/she does the tasks before or on time, then he/she is interested enough to continue that work and grow. If he/she does not show up at the time, it shows that he/she is a little interested in the work that is being assigned. Being punctual can show the reality of the working individual.

3. Professional Career- A person who always shows up on time has a positive image at his workplace. Coming late will act as a barrier that will hinder their growth in their career. In some institutions, latecomers have to pay penalties and receive punishments in several forms like cut in income, reduction in perks, etc.

4. Key to Success- Punctuality is a key to success for everyone. A person who understands this and values time preciously can easily become a punctual individual. Time is a very precious asset that, once lost never comes back. So, punctuality makes an individual efficiently utilize time and become a successful person.

5. Happy Mind and Soul- Punctuality makes an individual happy and healthy. A punctual person never feels pressure on the work he/she is doing. He/she gets up early in the morning and is energetic enough to do the work efficiently. A person is always happy and relaxed as a result of being punctual.

6. Trusted People- A punctual person can be trusted upon. If he/she says that "I will be there", then it means that he/she will turn out at the right time and place. So, senior members can depend on these people which increases their value in the eyes of the authority. Also, punctual people may receive big responsibilities on behalf of their senior members.

7. Shapes Discipline- Punctuality and discipline are interrelated. Both of these qualities make an individual successful. A punctual person will be disciplined as well. He/she will be optimistic and will have good decision-making abilities. A person will be able to do every task efficiently.

8. Respecting Other People- A punctual person is filled with other good habits as well. He/she respects other people regardless of any constraint. This quality makes him/her different from others and paves way for his/her promotion and success in both professional and personal life.

Being punctual is very important for people. It builds self-confidence in an individual. It shows how much an individual is interested to do any task. Apart from this, a punctual person has a positive image in his/her workplace. Punctuality along with discipline is a key to success for individuals. Punctuality makes a person healthy and keeps him/her happy. People can trust individuals who are punctual and provide them with greater opportunities in the workplace.

Punctuality also shapes discipline in an individual. It also increases the efficiency of individuals. It increases respect for other people and paves new opportunities for the promotion of the individual at the working institution.

Hence, an individual must learn this quality to succeed and become a better version of himself/herself. Leading your life your own way is only possible when an individual respects time and priorities his/her task in a wise manner. Being punctual is not only ethically right but is also one of the habits which inculcate discipline and a sense of purpose to our lives.

Written by -Vaibhav Sharma

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Punctuality: The Exceptional Quality of Every Great Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As said by William Shakespeare, "Better three hours too soon than a minute too late". Punctuality is very important in everyone's life. It is a key to success. Exceptional leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Sir M. Visvesvaraya, etc possessed this quality that made them different from others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The watch never left his side. It was the first thing Gandhi reached for when he rose each morning at 4 a.m., and the last thing he checked before going to bed, often past midnight. He consulted it frequently through the day so as never to be late for an appointment. And, at that final moment, when three bullets from an assassin's Beretta knocked him over, his 78-year-old body slumped to the ground, and the watch also stopped.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ingersoll pocket watch, costing just a dollar, was among the handful of material possessions he owned. Since he didn't have a pocket to carry it in, he attached the watch to his dhoti with a safety pin and a loop of khadi string. The Ingersoll is displayed in a glass case at the National Gandhi Museum in New Delhi alongside his bloodstained dhoti and shawl. Together, the three items form a striking metaphor of Kala, the Hindu god of time who is also the god of death.

Gandhi's legendary punctuality had a utilitarian imperative-without it he would never have been able to answer the sacks of letters and streams of visitors that demanded his attention each day. But, as with everything he valued, it had a moral imperative as well. Simply put, time was tied to his philosophy of trusteeship: the belief that just as we do not own our wealth but are trustees of it-and thus have to use it wisely-similarly, we are trustees of our time. " You may not waste a grain of rice or a scrap of paper, and similarly a minute of your time," he wrote. "It is not ours. It belongs to the nation and we are trustees for the use of it." Consequently, any abuse of time was unethical. "One who does less than he can is a thief," he wrote to a friend. "If we keep a timetable we can save ourselves from the last-mentioned sin indulged in even unconsciously." While this focus on punctuality may portray Gandhi as skittish and anxious, the opposite was true: a timetable allowed him to give the issue at hand his tranquil and undivided attention.

Known to apologize if he was even a minute late, Gandhi was equally stringent about his personal regimen. Winding up a letter to a professor, he wrote: "I am also being reminded by Lady Watch that it is time for my walk. So I obey her and stop here." Apparently, even the British police knew about Lady Watch. After Gandhi relaunched the civil disobedience movement in January 1932, the Bombay commissioner of police showed up at three in the morning to arrest him. Gandhi, who was still asleep, sat up to hear the commissioner say, "I should like you to be ready in half an hour's time." Instinctively, he reached under his pillow, and the commissioner remarked, "Ah, the famous watch!" Both men began to laugh. Then Gandhi picked up a pencil-it was his weekly day of silence-and wrote, "I will be ready to come with you in half an hour."

Barely a few days before his arrest, Gandhi had sent two English watches as thank-you gifts to the Scotland Yard sergeants assigned to detail him during his stay in London for the 1931 Round Table Conference. The inscription read: "With love from M. K. Gandhi." Much thought had gone into the gift. The sergeants, who used to rise with Gandhi in the morning and travel everywhere with him, knew firsthand how the slender hands of the clock ruled his day. The gift of a watch from him thus had a special significance. In addition, Gandhi chose English rather than the more easily available Swiss-made watches to convey the message that, despite his campaign to boycott British cloth, he bore no ill will to the British people. When his friend the Anglican missionary C. F. Andrews had objected strongly to his bonfires of foreign cloth, Gandhi took great pains to point out it was only foreign mill-made cloth he was against since it had destroyed India's spinners and weavers. "If the emphasis were on all foreign things it would be racial, parochial, and wicked," he wrote. "The emphasis is on foreign cloth. The restriction makes all the difference in the world. I do not want to shut out English lever watches."

During his stints in jail as a prisoner of the Raj, Gandhi would often write more than fifty letters a day-even when his thumb and elbow ached-in addition to spinning, reading the Gita or works by John Ruskin, learning Urdu, cooking, and cultivating his passion for astronomy. His secretary Mahadev Desai marveled at his use of time. Gandhi's letters are brisk (like his walk) and often acerbic, but also intimate and full of concern-especially for the way people spent their time. What time do you wake up in the morning? he'd ask. Or, in a slightly hectoring reminder to the women of the ashram, "It is now five to seven; you are therefore all on your way to the prayer hall." Or, in a guilty self-check when he had written a longer than usual letter, "I must not give you more time today." Outside jail, he had far less time, so the letters became shorter. To those who complained, he replied sharply: "Do not expect letters from me at present. I have no time at all. But you keep writing regularly."

He was unsparing of tardiness from those around him, even if the offender happened to be a child. On learning that a girl at his Sabarmati ashram had been delayed for the pre-dawn prayer service because she'd been combing her long hair, he sent for a pair of scissors and gave her a bob in the moonlight. His eldest grandson, Kantilal, who was a startled witness to the Barber of Sabarmati in action, didn't escape either. When the two of them were on a train together, traveling third-class as was the Mahatma's habit, Gandhi, who was busy writing letters, asked Kanti what time it was, and was told it was five. But the old man's eyes slanted to the watch on his grandson's wrist and saw there was still a whole minute to go before five. That was it. The casual glossing over of sixty seconds was treated as a moral lapse:

"He stopped writing and exclaimed: 'Is it five?' I replied with a guilty conscience: 'No, Bapu, it is one minute to five.' 'Well, Kanti,' he said, 'what is the use of keeping a wristwatch? You have no value of time...Again, you don't respect truth as you know it. Would it have cost more energy to say: It is one minute to five, than to say It is five o'clock?' Thus he went on rebuking me for about fifteen to twenty minutes till it was time for his evening meal."

As is evident from the cheerfully inexact phrase, "about fifteen to twenty minutes," the young Kanti was unscathed by his grandfather's critique. He was scarcely alone. Gandhi was fighting a losing battle. Indians have a notoriously relaxed attitude toward punctuality, and as the national joke goes, the abbreviation IST (for Indian Standard Time) should really stand for Indian Stretchable Time. One reason proffered is that the approach to time is fundamentally different. Unlike the Western linear sense of time, Hindu philosophy treats time as cyclical, a concept succinctly illustrated by the sameness of the Hindi word for yesterday and tomorrow- kal. As Salman Rushdie jokes in Midnight's Children, "No people whose word for yesterday is the same as their word for tomorrow can be said to have a firm grip on time." But Rushdie also parodies the relentlessly accurate tick-tock of the clock as an "English-made" invention. A similar observation was made by the writer Ronald Duncan, who visited Gandhi's ashram in 1937. Duncan wrote: "I shall always remember the anachronism of the large cheap watch which dangled on a safety-pin attached to his loincloth: worn this way, time itself appeared to be a toy, an invention of the Western mind."

According to the novelist R. K. Narayan, the Indian inability to keep time comes from an inborn attitude. Narayan, whose shrewd and gentle stories capture the arrhythmic bustles of small-town India, was unperturbed by a little lateness here and there. "In a country like ours, the preoccupation is with eternity, and little measures of time are hardly ever noticed," he wrote, adding mischievously that the ideal watch is an ornamental one that prevents you from reading the time.

A new watch designed by an Indian company-called the ish watch-fits the bill. Its odd name parodies the Indian tendency to reply, "Around twelve-ish," when asked what time a meeting is, or to say, "I made reservations for eight-ish." The dislocated numbers on its dial capture this elasticity, while the caption reads, "Because in India, time is not science but an art, and we know that art can never be rushed." Or, to borrow a charming thought from E. M. Forster's A Passage to India, India is where "adventures do occur, but not punctually." It's hardly surprising, then, that Gandhi's exemplary punctuality is fondly viewed as another of his eccentricities along with mudpacks, enemas, and goat's milk.

"Keep Time and Carry On" could well have been a Gandhian motto, except that the Mahatma was not very good at keeping time in the literal sense of being able to keep to a beat or maintain a rhythm. As a young law student in London, when he strove briefly and disastrously to be a Western gentleman, Gandhi took six private lessons in ballroom dancing but gave up after he found it "impossible to keep time." While carding yarn, he complained, "I also keep time in my strokes, but imperfectly." Part of the young Gandhi's Western gentleman getup was a gold double-watch chain that he wore prominently on his Bond Street suit. The arc from that pocket-watch to the safety-pin-cum-khadi string Ingersoll parallels the arc from man to mahatma.

Apart from the Ingersoll, the other watch Gandhi loved and wore for almost twenty years was a silver-backed Swiss Zenith given to him by Indira Gandhi when she was a girl. Gandhi admired its functionality-the fact that it had an alarm and a radium dial that glowed at night. So great was his distress when it was stolen at a railway station in May 1947 that he published an appeal in his newspaper, Harijan, asking for it to be returned. Fortunately, the thief-a souvenir hunter-had a conscience, and sent it back.

Meanwhile, however, word had spread about the theft. An English company sent Gandhi a new watch and others offered as well. A gold watch sent by his friend Nand Lal Mehta provoked an outburst against ostentation. "What you have done is like caparisoning a donkey in gold," Gandhi wrote. (Imagine how scandalized he'd be at the Gandhi 2 Ingersoll, a watch that comes caparisoned in twenty-two jewels.) That Mehta's watch was merely gilded and not gold, cooled his wrath-barely. "Still I did not like it," he scolded. "I need only ordinary things. This watch cannot even take a khadi string. It will need a silken string. And because there is no radium on the dial, I shall need a torch or something at night. Of course it is not to be expected that it will have an alarm. This does not mean that you should get a new one." He concluded grudgingly, "The watch seems to be keeping accurate time."

The silver Zenith passed into the care of Gandhi's great-niece, Abha, in whose arms he died. It was auctioned in 2009 along with his slippers, plate, bowl, and spectacles for $1.8 million. That an Indian liquor tycoon, Vijay Mallya, bought it (thus ensuring its return to India) is ironic, given that Gandhi used every available platform to denounce alcohol as satanic. His birthday, October 2, is a dry day in India.

Gandhi was late for his last appointment, his inviolable five o'clock prayer session. On the evening of January 30, 1948, he was so engrossed in a meeting with India's new home minister, Sardar Vallabhai Patel-who was Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's rival-that he forgot the time. His great nieces, Manu and Abha, who were tasked with alerting him, held back, knowing how anguished he was by the rift between his two protégés. When they finally screwed up the courage to interrupt, he rose quickly, went to the bathroom, and then headed out. The interfaith prayer meeting was a crucial form of outreach through which Gandhi met the public and tried to calm the fissile atmosphere in Delhi. The capital of a newly independent India had been engulfed in savage Hindu-Muslim riots and only a fast by Gandhi had stopped the bloodletting. Upset, he hurried forth, saying, "It irks me if I am late for prayers by even a minute." Minutes later, he was dead, as was his watch-not at "around five" or "five-ish," but at 5:12, a chronometrically precise salute to the man who loved time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The watch never left his side. It was the first thing Gandhi reached for when he rose each morning at 4 a.m., and the last thing he checked before going to bed, often past midnight. He consulted it frequently through the day so as never to be late for an appointment.

# data[].attributes.body
Gopal Ganansh Agarkar Kahoot
Barbara Henry Kahoot
Oliver's presentation on Barbara Henry
Another resource on Barbara Henry
Ruby Bridges resource
Mr. Rogers Kahoot
Lizzy Howell
Tony Vaccaro
Young deaf girl video
New boy at school video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
https://kahoot.it/challenge/07080637?challenge-id=c7ce4cb6-9893-40cd-81fe-7c99d424d0c5_1676578433567

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
https://kahoot.it/challenge/04208157?challenge-id=c7ce4cb6-9893-40cd-81fe-7c99d424d0c5_1676579640687

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15-Year-Old Ballerina: “Stereotypes were made to be broken”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedoms's Legacy: A Conversation with Ruby Bridges Hall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tony Vaccaro (born Michelantonio Celestino Onofrio Vaccaro; December 20, 1922) is an American photographer who is best known for his photos taken in Europe during 1944 and 1945, and in Germany immediately following World War II. He subsequently became a fashion and lifestyle photographer for American magazines.

Michelantonio Celestino Onofrio Vaccaro was born in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, on December 20, 1922, to Italian immigrant parents. He was the second of their three children and the only boy.[1] His father Giuseppe Antonio Vaccaro (b. October 14, 1874) was from Bonefro in the Molise region of Italy. In 1926, in the course of the family relocating to Italy, both his parents died; he was raised in Italy by his paternal grandmother where he was physically abused by his father's brother.

With the outbreak of World War II, Vaccaro moved back to the United States in order to escape military service in Italy.[citation needed ] He graduated from Isaac E. Young High School in New Rochelle, New York, in 1943, and was drafted a few months later into the U.S. Army.[2] He sought an assignment as a photographer with the Army Signal Corps offering photographs taken in high school as evidence of his talent. He was rejected because of his age.

Instead, Vaccaro was sent to Europe as a private in the 83rd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army. He fought in Normandy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany.[citation needed ] His usual position as a scout provided him with the opportunity to take photographs[3] with the Argus C3 compact 35mm rangefinder camera that he was adept at using. In September 1945, he was discharged from the army. Vaccaro stayed in Germany, where he obtained a job first as a photographer for Audio Visual Aids (AVA) stationed at Frankfurt, and then with Weekend, the Sunday supplement of the U.S. Army newspaper Stars and Stripes. Until 1949, Vaccaro photographed throughout Germany and Europe, documenting post-war life.

After his return to the U.S. in 1949, he worked for Flair and Look before joining the magazine Life. Between 1950 and 1973 Vaccaro worked extensively as a celebrity and fashion photographer.

He settled in the West Village in 1951 and then on Central Park West in 1955. From 1970 to 1980 he taught photography at Cooper Union. In 1979 he moved both his residence and studio along with his archive of hundreds of thousands of images, to Long Island City. He continued to spend his summers in Rome.[4] He married Anja Lehto (1939-2013), a Finnish model, in 1963. They had two sons and separated in 1997.[5] They met when Vaccaro was shooting a series about Marimekko for Life.[6]

Although some 4,000 of his photographs were lost in an accident in 1947,[citation needed ] photographs from his extensive wartime archive were published in 2001 in his book, Entering Germany: Photographs 1944-1949 and 2002 in the book Shots of War. In 1994, he was awarded France's Legion of Honour at the celebrations marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Normandy landings.[7]

A museum named after Tony Vaccaro was inaugurated in Bonefro on August 24, 2014.[8]

In 2002 German public television showed the film "Schnappschüsse vom Krieg" (Shots of War).[9] The documentary film Underfire: The Untold Story of Pfc. Tony Vaccaro premiered at the Boston Film Festival on September 22, 2016,[4][10] where it won the award for "Best Story",[11] and aired on HBO November 14.[4] In 2021, Vaccaro's work was the subject of an exhibition[12] in Helsinki, Finland.

1963 Art Directors Gold Medal, New York[6]

1969 World Press Photo Gold Medal, The Hague[6]

1985 Key to the City and "Tony Vaccaro Day", New Rochelle, New York (May 8)

1994 Legion of Honour, Paris, France (May 23)[6]

1994 Le Trophee du Hommages, Caen, France

1994 La Flamme de la Liberté, Caen, France (June 12)

1995 Medal of Merit, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

1995 Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, Paris, France

1996 United States Postal Service: First day of issue, Georgia O'Keeffe stamp (May 23). The sheet reprinted alongside the stamps a photo Tony Vaccaro took of O'Keeffe in 1960.[13]

1996 Diplome de Citoyen d'Honneur, Rochefort, France (August 4)

2002 Medal of Honor, Luxembourg City (June 16)[6]

2002 Foire aux Noix, Bastogne, Belgium (December 21)

2003 Das Verdienstkreuz, Berlin, Germany (August 26)[6]

2004 Großes Verdienstkreuz mit Stern, Knight Commander of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, German Consulate, New York City (February 21)[14]

2014 f, Pescara, Italy (January 22)[6]

2017 Honoree, Queens Council on the Arts (February 16)[15]

2019 Inductee, International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum[16]

Tony Vaccaro: la mia Italia, fotografie 1945-1955. Berlin: Galerie Bilderwelt. 1996.

Tony Vaccaro: Deutschland 1945 - 1949. Berlin: Galerie Bilderwelt. 1999.

Frank Lloyd Wright. Kirchentellinsfurth: Kultur-unterm-Schirm in collaboration with Galerie Bilderwelt. 2002.

Tony Vaccaro. Retrospektive. 70 Jahre Fotografie. astfilm productions Berlin in collaboration with Galerie Bilderwelt and Reinhard Schultz.

Des Plages du Débarquement à Berlin, 1944-1945: Photographies de Tony Vaccaro (in French). Blérancourt: Musée national de la coopération Franco-américaine.

1. ^ Gadsden, R. (2005). Tony Vaccaro: The Formative Years. Vienna: Praesens Verlag. ISBN 3-7069-0345-8.[page needed ]

2. ^ "Entering Germany". The Globalist. January 24, 2004. Archived from the original on December 26, 2004.

3. ^ "'Shooting' Germany: 1944-1949". The Globalist. January 24, 2004.

4. ^

5. ^ "Growth Stories: Tony Vaccaro and Marimekko". Marimekko. Archived from the original on August 24, 2018.

6. Goepel, K.: ^ Bild-Ikonen zum Kriegsende: Tony Vaccaro s Werk, Icons Archived September 28, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, AKG-Images, August 15, 2005. In German. Accessed March 30, 2007.

7. ^ "Un museo per Tony Vaccaro" (in Italian). Molise Cinema. August 23, 2014.

8. ^ Terry, Joshua (October 6, 2016). "American Wrestler' Tops Boston's Film Festival Awards". Variety.

9. ^ Susan Campbell Bartoletti (2016). "About the Photographs". Hitler Youth: Growing up in Hitler's Shadow. Scholastic. ISBN 9781338088373.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tony Vaccaro (born Michelantonio Celestino Onofrio Vaccaro; December 20, 1922) is an American photographer who is best known for his photos taken in Europe during 1944 and 1945, and in Germany immediately following World War II. He subsequently became a fashion and lifestyle photographer for American magazines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nightly News: Kids Edition Celebrates Its First Anniversary | Nightly News: Kids Edition

# data[].attributes.body
Has some bad language

# data[].attributes.body
Did Libby's parents accept her deafness?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Silent Child | Oscar® Winning Short Film

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
You know what to expect from this type of person. If they say that they will do something, they’ll do it. They also treat all people the same and show kindness to everyone. This trait isn’t just beneficial to those receiving compassion, either, as it will benefit the person being kind, too.

# data[].attributes.body
Friendly people won’t pretend to be different than they indeed are. They act the same wherever they are, no matter who they are with. You won’t see them going along with things that they wouldn’t normally do, just because their friends are.
They are true to themselves when they state an opinion. You can always count on what they are saying about themselves because they won’t pretend to be different.

When others see that a person is authentic, they begin to view them as a trustworthy person. A genuine person won’t have to try to impress anyway, because they are already sure of themselves. When a person is this confident in who they are, it draws others to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Kind people are interested in what other people have to say. They are also involved in what is essential to other people. This helps them form and continue positive relationships.

They know that other people can help them learn, and they are interested in learning from them. There will be no hidden agenda, only a sincere desire to get to know those they interact with. Since each person offers something different, a nice person will strive to see what your strengths are.

# data[].attributes.body
This trait isn’t to say that those who are often late aren’t kind, but the most considerate of people exhibit promptness. They understand the value of your time, and they won’t leave you waiting on them. Because of this, they tend to be more organized and disciplined in life.

# data[].attributes.body
Friendly people accept everyone they meet, even if they don’t agree with their views. They embrace the fact that everyone is different, and they use it as a learning opportunity. You won’t hear them criticizing people for their differences.

This attitude allows others to be themselves around a nice person. They won’t feel negativity or tension, and they’ll be happier because of it. It helps form positive relationships, open-mindedness, and a happy and positive environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Power of Positivity: Positive Thinking & Attitude

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are certain traits that kind people have, and they may not even realize it. Since they are naturally kind-hearted, behaving in the way that they do comes easily to them. They don't have to work at it. They simply have to be themselves.

Kind people don't usually find themselves lonely or unsuccessful. This positive character trait contributes to positive social relationships and a more successful career. When people enjoy being around you, the interactions will be more positive and fulfilling.

The things that friendly people exhibit without realizing it are things that everyone else can work on. By consciously striving to develop these characteristics, anyone can become a nice person. After a while of conscious effort, it'll become second-nature to behave in this way.

Fifteen Traits That Kind People Exhibit

Kind people treat everyone the same, and they always think about the well-being of others. Before they act, they also consider how their actions will affect others. Because of this, they tend to exhibit many positive characteristics without even realizing it.

1. They Give Praise Often

Everyone wants to hear praise sometimes, and this is something you can count on from a nice person. They'll find something you do well, and they won't be shy about telling you how great you are.

Remember, when you praise someone for their efforts, they'll likely do even better next time. Think about how you feel when you receive kudos, and work harder to notice the good in others. Once you notice it, let them know and see how that praise encourages them.

2. Forgiveness

Nice people forgive easily, and rarely stay mad for long. They may not even get angry at all in situations that would make others crazy. Plus, they tend to walk away rather than argue, which could contribute to their ability to forgive quickly.

3. Patience

Kind people often show their kindness by being patient. Everyone makes mistakes or takes time to learn something new. This trait kicks in when patience is vital because being patient will want that person to try harder to succeed.

Being patient is also a way that friendly people show how much they care. They want you to know they believe in you and know you can do it.

4. Positivity

One of the reasons friendly people exhibit positivity is because they don't complain. Complaining spreads negativity, and kind people know this and keep it in mind.

They also choose to use a positive vocabulary. You won't hear them saying mean things when talking to others. Plus, they are extra careful not to say something offensive or hurtful.

You can count on nice people to look for the positive aspects of all situations. This includes a harmful situation when things didn't go as planned, too.

5. Helpfulness

Kind people are always looking for ways to help others. If they see that you are in need, they'll go out of their way to help you. This action could be giving you a ride when your car breaks down or helping you pick up things that you have dropped.

6. Compassion

Friendly people are a comfort to others through empathy and sympathy, stemming from their unhindered compassion. They can understand the problems of others and be sympathetic to what they are going through. Plus, they can be empathetic and help you through hard times.

They do this by listening to you and allowing you to express your feelings without interrupting. This is how they become so good at understanding how other people are feeling. By being compassionate and connecting on this level, they show their kindness and care of others.

7. They are Polite

You won't see a nice person being rude, and they'll always use their manners. They are kind and polite to employees at businesses they visit, even when things aren't perfect.

They show respect to others and respect boundaries set in relationships. Nice people just want to show the respect that they expect to get back.

8. Honesty

When something isn't working for them, they'll speak up and say so. You won't get passive-aggressive behavior from these folks. Plus, you won't have to worry about how they truly feel because they will tell you.

Even though they will speak up when necessary, they'll still do it kindly. They won't say it in a way that will hurt your feelings or make you upset.

They also tell the truth when they've made a mistake. They honestly acknowledge their shortcomings and take responsibility.

9. Thoughtfulness

If you have a kind person in your life, you know that they are always thoughtful. They constantly think about what others would want and consider the opinions of others. Most importantly, they think about how their actions will affect those around them.

In their most personal relationships, they do unexpected and thoughtful things for those they love. This could be leaving a little gift or a note, or it can be by preparing their favorite meal.

10. Consistency

You know what to expect from this type of person. If they say that they will do something, they'll do it. They also treat all people the same and show kindness to everyone. This trait isn't just beneficial to those receiving compassion, either, as it will benefit the person being kind, too.

11. Humility

This doesn't mean they put themselves down, but they are humble about their strengths. They know what they are good at, and they don't go out of their way to brag to others.

Friendly people also recognize areas that they are lacking in and work to improve on them. They can take constructive criticism, and it doesn't make them upset.

This acceptance is because they are satisfied with who they are, and they understand they have to continue working hard anyway. They don't need to be a star in their field. Instead, they just acknowledge that they are doing their best. This behavior allows them to remain humble despite their strengths, and to continue working on their faults.

12. Authenticity

Friendly people won't pretend to be different than they indeed are. They act the same wherever they are, no matter who they are with. You won't see them going along with things that they wouldn't normally do, just because their friends are.

They are true to themselves when they state an opinion. You can always count on what they are saying about themselves because they won't pretend to be different.

When others see that a person is authentic, they begin to view them as a trustworthy person. A genuine person won't have to try to impress anyway, because they are already sure of themselves. When a person is this confident in who they are, it draws others to them.

13. They are Interested in Others

Kind people are interested in what other people have to say. They are also involved in what is essential to other people. This helps them form and continue positive relationships.

They know that other people can help them learn, and they are interested in learning from them. There will be no hidden agenda, only a sincere desire to get to know those they interact with. Since each person offers something different, a nice person will strive to see what your strengths are.

They stay focused on the person who is talking to them, making them a joy to connect with. It allows those they are communicating with to feel relaxed and drawn in. Additionally, it'll make a nice person the perfect person to network with.

14. Acceptance

Friendly people accept everyone they meet, even if they don't agree with their views. They embrace the fact that everyone is different, and they use it as a learning opportunity. You won't hear them criticizing people for their differences.

This attitude allows others to be themselves around a nice person. They won't feel negativity or tension, and they'll be happier because of it. It helps form positive relationships, open-mindedness, and a happy and positive environment.

15. Promptness

This trait isn't to say that those who are often late aren't kind, but the most considerate of people exhibit promptness. They understand the value of your time, and they won't leave you waiting on them. Because of this, they tend to be more organized and disciplined in life.

Final Thoughts on Things That Kind People Exhibit Without Realizing It

Kind people exhibit many positive character traits without even realizing they are doing it. These qualities tend to come naturally to them. Having these traits come usually happens after an extended period of behaving this way consciously.

Often, these traits develop during childhood and early adulthood, but that's not always the case. Anyone can develop these traits through conscious effort and creating habits. Then, over time, the characteristics become second-nature to those people, too.

If you or someone you know is a kind person, you'll recognize many of these traits already. From showing compassion for others to going out of their way to help people, you can count on them for this. Kind people are always thinking of the well-being of others, and they strive to make people feel good and succeed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Traits That Kind People Exhibit Without Realizing It | 5 Min. Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are certain traits that kind people have, and they may not even realize it. Since they are naturally kind-hearted, behaving in the way that they do comes easily to them. They don't have to work at it. They simply have to be themselves. Kind people don't usually find themselves lonely or unsuccessful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about Nelson Mandela's biography. A great civil rights leader from South Africa.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carter: Mandela had character to forgive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nelson Mandela Forgiveness Story -Inspirational Video on Forgiveness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Invictus #1 Movie CLIP - Reconciliation and Forgiveness Start Here (2009) HD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nelson Mandela and the Science of Forgiveness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What It Takes is an audio podcast produced by the American Academy of Achievement featuring intimate, revealing conversations with influential leaders in the diverse fields of endeavor: public service, science and exploration, sports, technology, business, arts and humanities, and justice.

Know what is the purpose of life that you are inclined to serve, that you are drawn to. Do what makes your heart leap rather than simply follow some style. Not everyone can or should be a scientist. Not everyone can or should be any one thing. People need to know what kind of purpose they can serve.

In America in the 1950s, summertime was a time of fear and anxiety for many parents; this was the season when children by the thousands became infected with the crippling disease poliomyelitis, or polio. This burden of fear was lifted forever when it was announced that Dr. Jonas Salk had developed a vaccine against the disease. Salk became world-famous overnight, but his discovery was the result of many years of painstaking research.

Jonas Salk was born in New York City. His parents were Russian-Jewish immigrants who, although they themselves lacked formal education, were determined to see their children succeed, and encouraged them to study hard. Jonas Salk was the first member of his family to go to college. He entered the City College of New York intending to study law, but soon became intrigued by medical science.

While attending medical school at New York University, Salk was invited to spend a year researching influenza. The virus that causes flu had only recently been discovered and the young Salk was eager to learn if the virus could be deprived of its ability to infect, while still giving immunity to the illness. Salk succeeded in this attempt, which became the basis of his later work on polio.

After completing medical school and his internship, Salk returned to the study of influenza, the flu virus. World War II had begun, and public health experts feared a replay of the flu epidemic that had killed millions in the wake of the First World War. The development of vaccines controlled the spread of flu after the war, and the epidemic of 1919 did not recur.

In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh Medical School. While working there, with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years.

In 1955, Salk's years of research paid off. Human trials of the polio vaccine effectively protected the subject from the polio virus. When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a miracle worker. He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine. He had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible.

Salk's vaccine was composed of "killed" polio virus, which retained the ability to immunize without running the risk of infecting the patient. A few years later, a vaccine made from live polio virus was developed, which could be administered orally, while Salk's vaccine required injection. Further, there was some evidence that the "killed" vaccine failed to completely immunize the patient. In the U.S., public health authorities elected to distribute the "live" oral vaccine instead of Salk's.

Tragically, the preparation of live virus infected some patients with the disease, rather than immunizing them. Since the introduction of the original vaccine, the few new cases of polio reported in the United States were probably caused by the "live" vaccine which was intended to prevent them. In countries where Salk's vaccine has remained in use, the disease has been virtually eradicated. In 1963, Salk founded the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies, an innovative center for medical and scientific research. Jonas Salk continued to conduct research and publish books, some written in collaboration with one or more of his sons, who are also medical scientists. Salk's published books include Man Unfolding - Salk's plea to "look at human life from a biological viewpoint" - (1972), The Survival of the Wisest(1973), World Population and Human Values: A New Reality (1981), and Anatomy of Reality (1983).

Dr. Salk's last years were spent searching for a vaccine against AIDS. Jonas Salk died on June 23, 1995. He was 80 years old. The 100th anniversary of his birth in 2014 was the occasion for renewed appreciation and celebration of Dr. Salk's contribution to humanity.

Inducted in 1976

"We were told in one lecture that it was possible to immunize against diphtheria and tetanus by the use of chemically-treated toxins, or toxoids. And the following lecture, we were told that for immunization against a virus disease, you have to experience the infection, and that you could not induce immunity with the so-called 'killed' or inactivated, chemically-treated virus preparation. Well, somehow, that struck me. What struck me was that both statements couldn't be true. And I asked why this was so, and the answer that was given was in a sense, 'Because.' There was no satisfactory answer."

Jonas Salk was still a student when he began to look for a better answer to his classroom question, and the answer he found led to one of the most dramatic breakthroughs in the history of medicine.

In America in the 1950s, summertime was a time of fear and anxiety for many parents; this was the season when children by the thousands became infected with the crippling disease poliomyelitis, or polio. That burden of fear was lifted forever when it was announced that Dr. Jonas Salk had developed a vaccine against the disease. Salk became world-famous overnight, but his discovery was the result of many years of painstaking research.

Salk went on to found the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, where he continued his research into the causes, prevention and cure of diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Dr. Salk never patented his polio vaccine, but distributed the formula freely, so the whole world could benefit from his discovery.

When did you first have a vision of what you might accomplish in the field you chose?
Jonas Salk: You never have an idea of what you might accomplish. All that you do is you pursue a question. And see where it leads. The first moment that a question occurred to me that did influence my future career, occurred in my second year at medical school. Although you must understand, all of the events that occurred before laid the foundation in a way. And if those events had not occurred, then that moment would have passed by quite differently. But as I tell the story...

We were told in one lecture that it was possible to immunize against diphtheria and tetanus by the use of chemically-treated toxins, or toxoids. And the following lecture, we were told that for immunization against a virus disease, you have to experience the infection, and that you could not induce immunity with the so-called "killed" or inactivated, chemically-treated virus preparation. Well, somehow, that struck me. The way it struck me was that both statements couldn't be true. I asked why this was so, and the answer that was given was, in a sense, "Because." There was no satisfactory answer.

Perhaps it had been tried and had not succeeded. There had not been any success. And I think that in fact was true. But it was some two years later, I think it was, that...

I had an opportunity to spend time in elective periods in my last year in medical school, in a laboratory that was involved in studies on influenza. The influenza virus had just been discovered about a few years before that. And I saw the opportunity at that time to test the question as to whether we could destroy the virus infectivity and still immunize. And so, by carefully designed experiments, we found that it was possible to do so.

That was how that particular line of investigation, you might say - and it influenced my career - occurred.It was, in a sense, a paradox.It didn't make sense, and that question persisted in my mind.I had forgotten about it in the interim.I was pursuing another path, I was interested in chemistry, I was interested in the rheumatic diseases, and since I was not able to pursue that in that particular lecture period, and by chance I found myself in this laboratory, I pursued that question, from then on. I interrupted those studies because I graduated from medical school and interned. The war broke out, influenza was important, and I continued on in research in that field, developed a flu vaccine, and that led to all sorts of other things.
How did your work with the polio vaccine come about?
Jonas Salk: After my internship, in '42, I went to Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was there until '47, then went on to Pittsburgh, to be somewhat independent of my mentor. The opportunity in Pittsburgh was something that others did not see, and I was advised against doing something as foolish as that because there was so little there. However, I did see that there was an opportunity to do two things. One was to continue the work I was doing on influenza, and two, to begin to work on polio. That was a very modest beginning.

Within a few months after I arrived in Pittsburgh, I was visited by the director of research of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, asking if I would be willing to participate in a program on typing polio viruses. I'd had no experience in working with polio, but this provided me with an opportunity, just as the work on influenza did. So I seized upon that opportunity. It gave me a chance to get funds, to get laboratory facilities, to get equipment, to hire staff, and to build up something that was not there. It also would provide me with an opportunity to learn about how you work with the polio virus.

That experience was looked upon by most people as routine drudgery. It wasn't that way to me, because instantly I saw that there were more efficient ways of typing viruses than were proposed by those who set forth the protocol that I was supposed to follow. It didn't take long for them to realize that I saw the world differently, and that I could make things work more efficiently and effectively. In the course of that work, it became obvious to me that we had the ways and means for moving ahead toward vaccine development. We knew there were three types of the virus. John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins at Harvard had just grown the virus in tissue culture. I didn't delay. I didn't waste any time, just picked up these methods and techniques, and began to advance them even further ahead than those who initiated the work. By putting the bits and pieces together, I moved very quickly into studies in animals, and then on humans.
What attracted you to the notion of using a killed vaccine? That goes back to your influenza work, doesn't it?
Jonas Salk: The reason for pursuing the idea of a killed virus vaccine is very simple. Before the work on influenza, the effective vaccines were those made with what we call attenuated, or so-called weakened viruses. They have the capacity to infect, but they are less likely to cause disease. Now sometimes smallpox or vaccinia virus - which is the same virus that is used to make immunization against smallpox - would cause serious reactions, and sometimes fatal reactions. There was a rabies vaccine that was made from weakened viruses. There was also a yellow fever vaccine that had been developed that was a weakened virus.

The principle that I tried to establish was really that it was not necessary to run the risk of infection, which would have been the case if one were to try to develop an attenuated or weakened polio virus vaccine. And so it seemed to me the safer and more certain way to proceed. That if we could inactivate the virus that we could move on to a vaccine very quickly. Whereas, if you were dealing with weakened virus, you would have to demonstrate its safety eventually. So that was the reasoning and there was a principle that was involved. You might say a scientific principle, a fundamental principle: choosing and preferring that which - the safety which you could control, and the quantities which you could use. So that this is, in a way, a more scientific approach. Trying to work like nature, instead of imitating nature.

Therefore, I wanted simply to select a variant that was weakened, you might say. At that time I was behaving like a medical scientist. Exploring the limits within which one could effectively immunize with a non-replicating, non-multiplying virus. So, it was not a matter of why I chose that. I was investigating to see whether it could be done - and it could be done.

And, then we determined the parameters within which, in terms of dose and quantity and duration and persistence, and what kind of immunity, if an immune response was required. And that way, I began to develop an understanding of the principles of vaccinology as applied to polio miletus as well as influenza. So, that was the attitude that prevailed at that time. It was not simply empirical. It was a theoretical experimental approach.
You got quite a bit of flack for that because no one had done it before, and you were going out on a limb.
Jonas Salk: I wasn't going out on a limb. The flack to which you refer is what taught me, very early on, not only about the human side of nature, but about the human side of science.

Keys to success - Perseverance

There are three stages of truth. First, is that it can't be true, and that's what they said. You couldn't immunize against polio with a killed-virus vaccine. Second phase, they say, "Well, if it's true, it's not very important." And the third stage is, "Well, we've known it all along." What you are describing is the process that you have to go through when you come up with an idea that has not yet been tried or tested. While it is true that this involves personalities, it also involves different ways of seeing. It was not a matter of a popularity contest, it was not a matter of anything other than that my curiosity drove me to find out whether it could work or not.

So, it started with you doubting something that everyone else assumed was true?
Jonas Salk: I didn't doubt it. I just questioned the logic of it, the reasonableness of it, when other people accepted it. I just didn't accept what appeared to me to be a dogmatic assertion in view of the fact that there was a reason to think otherwise. So that it was not merely doubting a belief, there was a principle involved. I try to understand the laws of nature, the principles that are involved, and that's what I've attempted to do ever since then, in the development of what I think of as the science of vaccinology, which had not been a science prior thereto. I entered medicine with the idea of bringing science into medicine. I had the opportunity to investigate this question scientifically, thinking and working as a scientist.

I was not trained as a scientist. I was trained in medicine, And, so my functioning, you might say, as a medical scientist, came through being self-taught through the experience of investigating the questions that were of interest to me. And, I had no formal training as a virologist, or as an immunologist. But, I learned what I needed to know in order to address those questions.

I have tried to understand how viruses work, how viruses think, how the immune system works and other questions that pertain to my interests, whether it was cancer or immune disease, or multiple sclerosis, and now AIDS. But I am also interested in the human side of these issues.

Why do I see things differently from the way other people see them? Why do I pursue the questions that I pursue, even if others regard them as, as they say, "controversial?" Which merely means that they have a difference of opinion. They see things differently. I am interested both in nature and in the human side of nature, and how the two can be brought together, and effective in a useful way.
When you were working on the polio vaccine, was there a moment of discovery, or a moment of realization?
Jonas Salk: There was a moment at which we recognized the antibody response had been produced in human subjects. That was in September of 1952. We saw what I call a flicker of antibody response which was real and substantial. That was the first evidence that we were able to do in humans what we could do in animals.
How did that feel?
Jonas Salk: It was nice to know that we were on the right track. It was the encouraging sign, and it sort of opened the way. It's like seeing the light, you might say. Anytime you get a "yes" from a person or from nature, it is encouraging. It's affirming.
Since the success of the vaccine came when you were at a pretty young age, we might imagine that you walked into a laboratory and there it was. I'm sure it wasn't that easy. What things didn't work out that led you to what did work out?
Jonas Salk: As I look upon the experience of an experimentalist, everything that you do is, in a sense, succeeding. It's telling you what not to do, as well as what to do. Not infrequently, I go into the laboratory, and people would say something didn't work. And I say, "Great, we've made a great discovery!" If you thought it was going to work, and it didn't work, that tells you as much as if it did. So my attitude is not one of pitfalls; my attitude is one of challenges and "What is nature telling me?"

This ideal, this idealized notion that discovery, so to speak, is just something falling into your lap! It's recognizing something that you might not have anticipated. Or designing an experiment and finding out that it fits within certain parameters, and you see what the patterns of the response are. And basically, it's entering into a dialogue with nature.

Now, some people might look at something and let it go by, because they don't recognize the pattern and the significance. It's the sensitivity to pattern recognition that seems to me to be of great importance. It's a matter of being able to find meaning, whether it's positive or negative, in whatever you encounter. It's like a journey. It's like finding the paths that will allow you to go forward, or that path that has a block that tells you to start over again or do something else.
Did such a thing happen during the studies with the polio vaccine?
Jonas Salk: The work on polio went rather smoothly, because it was following a smooth and simple path. There was one episode that occurred, after field trials, when the vaccine was licensed. Within a matter of two weeks after it was in use, there was a report of cases of polio caused by the vaccine. Now, there was no such encounter in the field trial, and it was only as a result of the vaccine from one particular laboratory, but not the others. Well, this was a source of immediate concern, a terrible disappointment, a tragic disappointment. When we looked into that, it became clear immediately that this manufacturer did not follow the procedures that were set forth. It was partly because of a disregard for the new principles that were introduced in order to make sure that the vaccine would be safe, as well as effective. This was an example of disbelief that it was necessary to go through the routine that was set forth.

That had some adverse effects in terms of credibility, which was not attributable correctly to the work I did. This was the exception that proved the rule that proved how right we were in the way in which we had proceeded. That was something from which it was necessary to recover. Our vaccine was suspended. Its use was suspended for a short period of time, reintroduced again after that problem was isolated and that vaccine was withdrawn. All the others were used and things then proceeded in the normal fashion. That's just an example of the hazards that one has to deal with, particularly at that level of experimentation.
You obviously had tremendous confidence in this vaccine. Was it nerve-wracking when you first tested this on humans?
Jonas Salk: Yes. What I had confidence in were the results that we had obtained as we went along. We had to understand how to destroy virus infectivity, so that we could do it reliably. Nevertheless, the first time that humans were inoculated it was a matter of some concern. Unknown events might have taken place, things that might have been overlooked. There was some apprehension until that phase of the experiment was over.

Before the field trial, I did a test in about 5,000 school children in the city of Pittsburgh which was of the nature to make sure that things did go well, before we went ahead and put this out on a much larger scale. And so, while it is true that we proceed on the basis of things that we know, about which we can have confidence, so to speak, that when you engage in human experimentation, you must proceed in a somewhat cautious manner and be prepared for the unforeseen and the unknowable.
Did you try to keep the experiments a secret?
Jonas Salk: We didn't work at keeping the experiments a secret, but we didn't make it public. Obviously, it was being carried out in an institution, lots of people knew about it. But we were not about to announce in the press because that was not the style in that day. The press was much less sophisticated in this regard. I saw no reason to try to carry out laboratory experimentation under a spotlight, any more than I would want to have the press in my laboratory, recording everything that is going on. There was a good deal of human interest involved, but that was not the primary objective. It would have been distracting, as it is now. I still preserve that attitude.

We began studies in humans in July of 1952, and what we were doing was not known, generally speaking, until the end of January. There was a leak by Earl Wilson, the columnist for one of the New York newspapers, who heard of a meeting in which I spoke - the advisory committee of the March of Dimes, to reveal to them what we had learned. Earl Wilson called Howard Howe, of Johns Hopkins University, thinking that it was his work that was referred to, because he had been carrying out studies in monkeys and chimpanzees. Howard Howe said no, it was not he, it was Jonas Salk. And that's how Earl Wilson got the story. That leak revealed that we had already inoculated human subjects, and the work had not yet been prepared for publication. So I quickly got underway, and within two months we had the results of the work published. Then everyone knew what was going on.
Can you describe the day that the results of the national trial were announced? That was a pretty big deal.
Jonas Salk: It was on April 12, 1955, that the announcement was made by Dr. Francis, who had conducted the field trial. He was my mentor back at New York University and at Pittsburgh in the work on influenza. He had agreed to conduct these field trials for the March of Dimes. That was a very public event, and it was done with great fanfare. Many people were invited, scientists and non-scientists. It was held in Ann Arbor, staged by the University of Michigan, using this occasion to draw attention to what had been done.

It was then that I became looked upon as a public figure, and I had to fight and struggle to continue on with my work. It was a big event, and it was a time when the news was good. I was not on the outside, I was on the inside. I learned what it was like on the outside later. When people meet me even now, they remember exactly the moment when this announcement was made, and the events that followed.
There was a tremendous rejoicing, wasn't there?
Jonas Salk: I suppose so. There was a great rejoicing, obviously. Because of the freedom from fear, or the relief that comes from, "Now I know what to do in order to try to prevent the occurrence of this fearsome possibility."
Were you interested in science as a child?
Jonas Salk: As a child I was not interested in science. I was merely interested in things human, the human side of nature, if you like, and I continue to be interested in that. That's what motivates me. And, in a way it's the human dimension that has intrigued me.
Were you a curious kid, about nature and that sort of thing?
Jonas Salk: I think I was curious from the earliest age on. There was a photograph of me when I was a year old and there was that look of curiosity on that infant's face that is inescapable. I have the suspicion that this curiosity was very much a part of my early life: asking questions about unreasonableness. I tended to observe, and reflect and wonder. That sense of wonder, I think, is built into us.
It's often said that the curiosity and wonder of childhood is sort of beaten down in us as we grow up.
Jonas Salk: Yes, I don't think I shared it too much with others. I kept it pretty much to myself, and when I reached that age at which I could do something about it, then I did. So it was not suppressed or destroyed.

It's that curiosity that bursts in childhood, during the period of play and creativity that reveals what we're trying to say. That's the nature of the human being. That's what is the nature of the human species, as distinct from other species, where we see this enormous creativity because we are responsible for all that has been created, beyond that which nature has done.
Obviously, you were doing a lot of thinking at an early age. Did you get along with your classmates? Were you sociable?
Jonas Salk: I got along with my classmates, but I was not as sociable a child. I could spend time by myself and I still do. I would say that I spent more time alone than I did in social settings. Part of this was probably attributed to my mother's over-protectiveness, lest I hurt myself, or be injured in some way. How much of this is innate, and how much of this came about through that kind of nurturing, I can't say. Nevertheless, I did learn in time that I could spend time alone, as I do, walking on the beach. I spend time with others, of course, but also enjoy time with myself.
How did you decide to become a scientist? Did this happen in high school?
Jonas Salk: At some point, I recall having the ambition to study law, to be elected to Congress, and to try to make just laws, but I didn't pursue the study of law, for a curious reason. My mother didn't think I'd make a very good lawyer. And I believe that her reasons were that I couldn't really win an argument with her.

This change took place between leaving high school and entering college. I entered college enrolled as a pre-law student, but I changed to pre-med after I went through some soul searching as to what I would do other than the study of the law. My mother's preference was that I should be a teacher, but that didn't appeal to me. I was interested in science, and I began to think about the scientific aspect of medicine. My intention was to go to medical school, and then become a medical scientist. I did not intend to practice medicine, although in medical school, and in my internship, I did all the things that were necessary to qualify me in that regard. I had opportunities along the way to drop the idea of medicine and go into science.

At one point at the end of my first year of medical school, I received an opportunity to spend a year in research and teaching in biochemistry, which I did. And at the end of that year, I was told that I could, if I wished, switch and get a Ph.D. in biochemistry but my preference was to stay with medicine. And, I believe that this is all linked to my original ambition, or desire, which was to be of some help to humankind, so to speak, in a larger sense than just on a one-to-one basis.

Just as I intended to study law, to make just laws, so I found myself interested now in the laws of nature, as distinct from the laws the people make.
How did your parents react to your decision to go into medicine and science? Were they encouraging?
Jonas Salk: Well, my parents were more than supportive, my mother particularly. My mother had no schooling. She came to this country from Russia in 1901. She immediately, as a young girl, began to work, you know, to help support the family. And she was very ambitious in a sense for her children. She wanted her children to have more than she had, so that she lived her life and invested her life, lived through her children.

I was the eldest of three sons and the favorite and the one who had all of her attention, certainly until my little brother was born - I was about five years old then - and my youngest brother when I was about 12. I was essentially an only child in the sense of having her interest and concerns and attention. She wanted to be sure that we all were going to advance in the world. Therefore we were encouraged in our studies, and overly protected in many ways. There was encouragement in general, but not particularly in any way, because there wasn't the same kind of culture that could lead to a particular orientation.
What did your father do?
Jonas Salk: My father was a designer of ladies' neckwear: blouses and things of that kind. He was a more artistic person. He was a designer in the garment industry, so to speak. He had not quite graduated from high school, only from elementary school.

We were not brought up in a family which was already cultured. My mother's children and my father's children were the first of their respective generations that went on to college.

So, there was something special in the household that was very nurturing for - shall we say - advancing in the world, getting ahead. But whether it was in business or in law or in medicine, so to speak, was not of great concern.
It's very inspiring that you didn't come from illustrious scientists. You can accomplish great things even if you are the first in your family to go to college.
Jonas Salk: Absolutely. There weren't any role models in my life, in that sense.
Where do you think your sense of wanting to do something for humankind came from?
Jonas Salk: I believe that this is part of our nature, and part of an ancestral heritage. That's how we got to be where we are, through people who performed or functioned that way, or had that drive, or the desire or ambition, which I look upon as a natural phenomenon. Some people are constructive, if you like. Others are destructive. It's this diversity in humankind that results in some making positive contributions and some negative contributions. It's necessary to have enough who make positive contributions to overcome the problems of each age.
It sounds like you felt a personal sense of duty to do something for the world. Was that something your parents instilled in you?
Jonas Salk: I have the impression that people like that are born as well as made. You are born with that instinct. Even if there is not encouragement, you overcome the resistances to any opposition, if that's the kind of person that you are. I think there is something inherited. We talk about the innate versus the acquired, about nature versus nurture. Our nature is revealed in the course of our life experience, and the nurturing comes from the opportunities that are available. If I were born in some other country, for example, my life would have been quite different.
What books were you attracted to when you were growing up?
Jonas Salk: As a matter of fact, I was not a great reader. I spent a good deal of time thinking, as I still do, about what went on in my life, my own observations and reflections. I did read what was part of schooling, but I was not an avid reader. There are a few significant books that I recall: Microbe Hunters and The Life of Louis Pasteur. I remember reading, as an adolescent, a book called The Island Within by Ludwig Lewisohn. The idea of the "island within" gives you the sense of the resonance that this had for me, because of my sense of myself, and the dialogues that I had with myself.
Early on in your career, was there someone who gave you an important break?
Jonas Salk: At the end of my first year of medical school, the professor of chemistry, Dr. R. Keith Cannon, tapped me on the shoulder and asked me to come to see him. I was quite sure that he was going to tell me that I was failing and give me some bad news.

Instead of which, he offered me an opportunity to drop out for a year and work with him in chemistry, during which time I could have my first experience in research, and also as a student teacher, so to speak. Since my desire, from the time I entered medical school, was to enter into and to do scientific research, that was the break that I seized upon.

It was a difficult decision to make, because I would have to leave my class, be alone, and in a sense be exceptional for that year, and then return to anther class. Nevertheless, I had the courage to do so.
That was an important year. You got quite a lot of work done in that year, didn't you?
Jonas Salk: I didn't get very much work done, in that sense. It was not an accomplished year, but it was the year that initiated a process. That was what was important. It was not the product of that year, but the initiation of a process, setting out on a path. It's important to recognize that sometimes at a turning point, what's important is to let go of the way you were going, or the way you are, to explore a new direction.
It sounds like a risk that really paid off.
Jonas Salk: Risks, I like to say, always pay off. You learn what to do, or what not to do. I like to say "nothing ventured, nothing gained." If I had failed to take advantage of that opportunity, I would not have known what I would have missed. That was the beginning of many similar opportunities which have come my way.
You mentioned earlier that you were not classically trained; you didn't have the Ph.D. Why did you choose to pursue your career in the unconventional way you did?
Jonas Salk: It was not unconventional at that time. At that time, medical scientists were self-made. Jenner, who developed the vaccine against small pox, was not specifically trained. Pasteur was a biochemist. There wasn't a particular pattern, which provided me with a degree of freedom. In spite of the fact that I did not have any formal training, I still was able to contribute in these ways, which allowed me to pick and choose whatever it was that I needed to know to address that question, bringing to bear whatever tools or techniques or knowledge I might need to obtain the answer.
You had phenomenal success in your work, but I gather there were some setbacks along the way. It seems shocking today, but you were turned down by a couple of institutes that you applied to after medical school.
Jonas Salk: In fact, my entering the field that led to work in vaccines came about as a result of my being denied an opportunity to work at another institution.

There are two great tragedies in life. One is to not get what you want; the other is to get what you want. And if I had gotten what I wanted, it would have been a greater tragedy than my not getting what I wanted, because it allowed me to get something else.
Tell us where you applied that you didn't get in.
Jonas Salk: I applied to a laboratory at a medical school that was interested in pathological disorders, diseases involving the immune system. I had also applied to a laboratory at Columbia University. I know how disappointed we all are, not to get what we want. But, the question is should that discourage us? That was not my attitude. My attitude was always to keep open, to keep scanning. I think that's how things work in nature. Many people are close-minded, rigid, and that's not my inclination.
Did you ever doubt yourself when you got turned down from these places?
Jonas Salk: I would say evidently not. I was merely looking for opportunities. And it was the opportunity that came first. It was not a test of me. In some instances, I was aware that there was a tendency toward favoritism or discrimination. In some instances, antisemitism played a role. I always realized that was always a factor. In fact, I almost didn't get into medical school because of quotas at that time. So, I was prepared for other eventualities. I was already prepared to go to graduate school to study endocrinology, for example, if I had not gone into medical school. It becomes necessary to be prepared for alternative paths. There may be a greater opportunity when something is denied.
How prevalent was polio when you began your research? It's hard for people growing up now to get a feeling for what the world was like then? Who was it striking? How was it spreading?
Jonas Salk: Poliomyelitis struck first at infants. That was why it was initially called infantile paralysis. But as hygienic conditions improved, the virus spread in the population in a different way than it did when hygienic conditions were poor. When hygienic conditions were poor, many infants died of diarrheal diseases. In the course of the infection that was spread that way, perhaps by exposure to sewage and unclean environments, they would very likely acquire the poliomyelitis virus infection, which, if it occurred in the first six months of life, would protect them against paralysis because of maternal antibody. After maternal antibody was lost, and the infection was acquired after six months of life, then paralysis would ensue. So at first it was an infection that would occur within the first six months to a year of life, or two or three years of life. But as time went on and hygienic conditions improved, they were spared the infantile infection, but were exposed later when paralysis could occur.

By the time the early 1950s appeared, about 25 percent of paralytic cases occurred in those 21 years of age and older. In fact, Franklin Roosevelt, who was a president of the United States, was paralyzed at the age of 39.

And so at that time the age distribution had changed. It was a disease that was spread less by water supply or by exposure to fecal contamination. It was spread now more by pharyngeal spread, in the family context or amongst playmates - the secretions of the nose and throat. Because the virus would enter the blood stream, it would multiply in the intestines, enter the blood stream, and then it would enter into the nervous system, the spinal cord - paralyze - but it would also appear in the throat. And then, it could spread that way in schools, and amongst playmates. Well that's how it was spread. As far as the incidence in the early 1950s - in the five years before the vaccine was available in '55 - about 25,000 cases occurred annually. The highest incidence was over 50,000 cases in 1953, I think it was. And this gives you some measure of the concern because it would crop up anywhere, at any time, without any forewarning.
How did the criticism affect you personally? Were you hurt by it, or did you just plow on?
Jonas Salk: I just plowed on. Hurt? That's one thing. Being deterred is another thing. And so, while we prefer to have an open path, one thing you learn in life is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. There's no way that everyone is going to agree and particularly if you go against the main stream.

Everyone at that time had their minds set on how they thought the problem ought to be dealt with, whether it was influenza or poliomyelitis or now even the work on AIDS. That's a characteristic of what I like to call the "evolutionary process."
It's unnerving to find that scientists who are bent on helping mankind get into these very bitter rivalries. Is that just a part of the field?
Jonas Salk: The contradiction is in your assertion. You say these scientists have a bent to help mankind. That's not what their objective is. If that was their objective, they might approach it somewhat differently. That is not necessarily the case. The motivation that drives us to do what we do is different in each instance. You begin to understand, from the effect it has produced, what is the person's real motivation. There are two aspects to our pursuits. You have to deal with nature, as I do when I go into the laboratory and do an experiment, and you have to deal with the human side of nature, which concerns how colleagues or others will react. This is what piqued my curiosity early in life. It continues to pique my curiosity. That's what I think of as the human dimension.
It sounds like you have to develop a fairly thick skin in this field.
Jonas Salk: You have to develop a thick skin in life. It's not in this field only. You might think of the ideal of the scientists, the ivory tower, the idealist. That's true of some. And, I wouldn't guess as to what proportion. But there are some who are of that character, and there are some who are not. What comes to mind now, as I often think of this, it's like a sea gull syndrome. I call them sea gull syndrome. When I walk on the beach, I see the sea gulls, going out and getting a fish or a piece of bread on the beach. And the others go after him, that one, rather than go get their own. And so, I see sometimes that if someone does something and gets credit for it, then there is this tendency to have this competitive response.
You achieved your success early on, which probably created a lot of jealousy.
Jonas Salk: Yes. I received an inordinate amount of attention and recognition, out of proportion to what was contributed scientifically. It came about altogether because of the relief from fear. It was a human response on the part of the public. But from the point of view of the scientific community, they would see it differently. That was an adverse side effect. But it also provided opportunities in other ways. These are the prices; one has to pay for the pluses as well as the minuses.
How did you react to that instant world-hero status? Were there tragic aspects to your loss of anonymity?
Jonas Salk: Yes, there were. I suddenly found myself being treated like a public figure, or a hero. I was no longer able to use my time altogether at my own discretion, but I made every effort to do so. And before not too long, things quieted down. From that point of view, it was a unique experience, not to be repeated again. It was not unlike the ending of a war, if you like. People often say they remember two things. They remember the polio episode and they remember Jack Kennedy's assassination. That is how these two things associate in the minds of people. That was the mood of the country and the world at the time.

I felt myself very much like someone in the eye of a hurricane because all this swirling was going on around me. It was at that moment that everything changed. It was Edward R. Murrow, the journalist and newscaster that said to me that evening, "Young man, a great tragedy has just befallen you." I said, "What's that, Ed?" He said, "You've just lost your anonymity."
Even today, there is debate about the vaccines. There was widespread use of Sabin's vaccine, beginning in the '60s, until very recently. As you know, it's been proven to be the leading cause of polio in this country. Did the AMA (American Medical Association) make a mistake in endorsing Sabin's vaccine?
Jonas Salk: Well, it's a good way to put the question. The oral vaccine developed by Sabin is a live vaccine. That decision, that deliberate shift in policy, was made at a time when we already knew that the vaccine-associated cases were occurring, and I had a difficulty understanding the logic of that, I must say. Was that a wise decision? Should this simply have been allowed to proceed in a natural way without declaring any preference, and let nature take its course? If you look at the story in the Scandinavian countries, where the killed-virus vaccine was used, polio has been eradicated. Here we continue to have vaccine-associated polio, even though there are parts of the world, underdeveloped countries, where the live-virus vaccine is not working and the killed-virus vaccine is being used. In Israel, just recently, they decided to use the killed-vaccine first, followed by the live vaccine. I always find policies like that really political rather than scientific. They are using the killed vaccine to make the live vaccine safe. But do you need the live vaccine to make the killed vaccine effective?

It's clear now, from everything we know, that it is safer and more certain to vaccinate by injection than by mouth. I say it in that way to get away from "live" versus "killed." If you give it by injection, then you know what you are putting in. You know the effect that it is going to have, whereas if you give it by mouth, you don't know whether or not the virus is going to become activated in a pathogenic way, in the sense of causing the disease either in the recipients, or in contacts. We also know that in parts of the world where other viruses inhabit the intestinal tract, there are inhibitors that prevent the live virus vaccine from taking effect.

I predict that - in order to eradicate polio from the population so that you don't have to immunize against polio anymore, because you have eliminated the virus from the natural reservoir - the killed virus vaccine will have to be used. It now is possible with fewer doses to produce uniform protection that is life-long. It wasn't believed to be so by others; I knew it was. So many assertions were made to discredit the use of the inactive virus vaccine which had no basis in scientific reality.

It's another place that I learned about the human side of science, the human side of nature. I've learned a lot, not only about the immune system, but about human systems. I have come to appreciate how the evolutionary process works. I see evolution as error making and error correction. Whatever errors were made are going to be corrected. In my own judgment, if they had not taken that position at that time, polio would have been eradicated from the United States much sooner. In a matter of just a few years, the incidence of the disease was reduced by 95 percent. The remainder would have been taken care of simply with time. The idea of shifting from one preparation to another had reasons that were beyond the realm of science.
How do you see the role of teamwork in science? You've certainly gone your own way and had tremendous courage in your personal convictions, but you can't do it all yourself. How do you balance that?
Jonas Salk: It was possible to do what I've done simply because others did see what I saw. You can have a team of unconventional thinkers, as well as conventional thinkers. If you don't have the support of others you cannot achieve anything altogether on your own. It's like a cry in the wilderness. In each instance there were others who could see the same thing, and there were others who could not. It's an obvious difference we see in those who you might say have a bird's eye view, and those who have a worm's eye view. I've come to realize that we all have a different mind set, we all see things differently, and that's what the human condition is really all about.

Therefore, since whatever we do has to be part of a team, part of a community, we have to attempt to bring together those who have the same conviction, see the same things. Then it becomes a matter of time, when one or the other will prevail. Fortunately, there is all this diversity, and if not for that, problems would not be solved. If everyone saw things in a certain way, and it was the - quote- wrong way, it would not lead to the path of solution. If we were to study the anatomy of success, then a great deal would be learned about the human attributes are associated with success. I think a great deal about that.
What are those attributes?
Jonas Salk: Well, I play with words. And at the moment, for some time now, I've been playing with the words that distinguish between what I call "evolvers" and "maintainers of the status quo."

The evolvers are people who cause things to change. The maintainers of the status quo do everything to keep things from changing.

And, there I see differences in perception, differences in vision, differences in interpretation, and differences in temperament, in personality. The number of evolvers are much fewer than the maintainers of the status quo. And, amongst the evolvers, there are some who are initiators, some who go along with what other people recognize to be new or different.

I have come to associate the kind of success that you're referring to, to individuals who have a combination of attributes that are often associated with creativity. In a way they are mutants, they're different from others and they follow their own drummer. We know what that means. And, either you are like that or you're not like that. If you are, then it would be well to recognize that there were others before you. And, people like that are not very happy or content, until they are allowed to express, or they can express what's in them to express.

We know what that means. Are we all like that? We are not like that. If you are, then it would be well to recognize that there were others before you. People like that are not very happy or content, until they are allowed to express what's in them to express. It's that driving force that I think is like the process of evolution working on us, and in us, and with us, and through us. That's how we continue on, and will improve our lot in life, solve the problems that arise partly out of necessity, partly out of this drive to improve.
What role does instinct play in decision-making? Has your gut ever sent you in a surprising direction?
Jonas Salk: I call that intuition. My last book is called The Anatomy of Reality; the subtitle is The Merging of Intuition and Reason. Reason alone will not serve. Intuition alone can be improved by reason, but reason alone without intuition can easily lead the wrong way.

The both are necessary. The way I like to put it is that I might have an intuition about something, I send it over to the reason department. Then after I've checked it out in the reason department, I send it back to the intuition department to make sure that it's still all right. For myself, that's how my mind works, and that's how I work. That's why I think that there is both an art and a science to what we do. The art of science is as important as so-called technical science. You need both. It's this combination that must be recognized and acknowledged and valued.
What led you to make the tremendous investment of time in founding your own institute here in San Diego?
Jonas Salk: It was not founding my own institute, just to put it into perspective. In the mid-'50s, soon after the work on polio was done, I put it then, "All of the problems of man would not be solved in the laboratory." Which was another way of saying that there is a human dimension to science. From what you've already heard, or what we've already talked about, you gather that I've had experiences that led me to that strong conviction. I also saw the need for fundamental studies in biology to help give us the basic background on which to understand about the problems of cancer, for example, or autoimmune disease.

Eventually I knew that the neurosciences were going to be terribly important. I also recognized that it would be necessary to address the human dimension as well, appreciating how much more morbidity and mortality is associated with war, with crime, drug abuse and so forth. And so, I thought that it would be well to consider establishing an institution that would be concerned not merely with nature, but with the human side of nature, not only with the molecular, cellular dimension, but what I call the human dimension. I thought if such individuals were to work together in the same context that we would begin to understand a great deal more, much more about these different realms by their commingling.
This is a unique institution in that regard, is it not?
Jonas Salk: It's a unique idea. And it was an idea that was articulated before its time. But now, it is so obvious that this is what's needed, that others are moving ahead in this respect. The institute has not addressed the human dimension directly, in the work it is doing at the present time, although it did in the beginning. But that will probably change. However, that was addressed in the establishment of the institute and the creation of this marvelous architectural setting, where people could do scientific work in a work of art, to see what would happen if you set up what I call a crucible for creativity.

It was set up on the basis of an evolutionary philosophy, acknowledging that it would be here long into the future. It was designed to invite change both structurally and in the laboratories and spaces, and also organizationally, and in subject matter. So, without my being conscious of what I was doing, intuitively I was expressing something that might be thought of more in the realm of a work of art, which I attempted to do in a scientific and rational way as well.

The institute has been quite successful, in its way. I think it will be successful in other ways in the future if this philosophy continues to prevail. When I attempted to do what I did, people questioned it, and said, "Scientists work in laboratories, they look into microscopes, they work in basements." And I said, "Yes that's true. I did all that myself but I want to see what happens if you do the experiment the other way. How will we know what might happen, unless we try? That was part of the motivation.

I also felt the need myself to lead a double life, because of my dual interests in nature and the human side of nature. I see myself as having some artistic and philosophical inclinations. And I tried to create a place for people like myself. I didn't find too many who fit those specifications, but a great many who liked being here, and who I think have been strongly influenced by the interactions that take place. It's only 30 years now since the institution began. It's still rather young in a long future, and all that will be revealed in time.
You certainly have attracted many of the greatest scientific minds of the time here.
Jonas Salk: Yes, but I would say that was part of the design. I was looking for people of size, of quality. The selection process at the beginning I was hoping would continue. That's how nature works, you might say, through the process of natural selection. Well, this process of selection is also part of natural selection.
What mystery would you most like to crack now? What would you most like to accomplish?
Jonas Salk: Apart from the work that we are doing on AIDS, what's of greatest interest to me now is an idea that I have written about and continue to pursue - the idea of what I call "universal evolution." I see ourselves as the product of the process of evolution, and we become the process itself. I see the continuity from what appears to be the beginning of time, when pre-biological evolution took place, and biological evolution, and then when the human mind came upon the scene and the emergence of ideas - accumulative genes, which I see as manifestations of the process of evolution at work on the gray matter. I am interested in a phase that I think we are entering. I call it "teleological evolution," evolution with a purpose.

The idea of evolution by design, designing the future, anticipating the future. I think of the need for more wisdom in the world, to deal with the knowledge that we have. At one time we had wisdom, but little knowledge. Now we have a great deal of knowledge, but do we have enough wisdom to deal with that knowledge?

I define wisdom as the capacity to make retrospective judgments prospectively. I think these are human qualities, human attributes that need to be brought out, need to be drawn upon, need to be valued.
How do you do that?
Jonas Salk: I think it happens by experience, by example, by recognition that we have these qualities and attributes. They have to be there to be activated. You can't put them in; it would require the equivalent to genetic engineering. What you see in living systems, and in genetic systems, is that the genes are already there, having arisen in the course of time, and when they are needed they become activated. If they had to be invented, the time would be too late. By the same token, I think that the people who are needed to help guide the future already exist. They simply need to recognize this in themselves, react to the opportunities that prevail, and also be valued and be encouraged. It's that very large, and as yet amorphous, rung that is of interest to me. I hope to articulate this, and see to what extent it makes sense to others as well.
Medically speaking, what do you see as the great frontier for the next generation?
Jonas Salk: To tell you the truth, I think the next great frontier is going to be the recognition and understanding of how the brain works. To develop, to cultivate, to maintain what I call "gray matter." We've been focusing on the molecular and cellular events of the genetic system, the immune system, the nervous system and the brain. It's that function of the brain that we associate with. I use the term "gray matter" simply to focus attention on the need to understand how our minds work, and how we can use our minds to better advantage for enhancing health, for enhancing the positive and reducing the negative.

I could speak about the advances that you could expect in surgery, or the advances in genetic engineering, and the capacity to develop new vaccines, and ways of regulating the immune system, and about the hormones and peptides, and other reagents that can be used for improving brain function. But what concerns me most is how human beings behave. If you stop and think about that, this is perhaps the most critically important consideration. Not only for how we behave in the world and in relation to each other, but from a medical point of view, in terms of individual health and well-being. The responsibility we take for our own lives, whether it's that of a drug user, or of one who is at high risk of developing HIV or AIDS, or any other consideration that requires wisdom. It's in the human dimension, as distinct from the molecular-cellular, if I could make this contrast, trying to understand the whole, which is far greater than the sum of the parts. That is where I sense the need for a new kind of mind, for individuals who are integrators, as distinct from the reductionists, or reductionists who could integrate as well.
These sound like people in the evolver category.
Jonas Salk: Indeed. That's why I'm likely to call this next book The Evolvers, to help people recognize these qualities and characteristics which they possess naturally.
What personal characteristics do you think are most important for success in any field?
Jonas Salk: The first thing I would like to point out is that each of us have a different purpose that we have to serve in the evolutionary scheme of things. We are not all equally endowed to do everything. When I speak about teleological evolution, I speak about the idea of "telos," purpose. Socrates said, "Know thyself," meaning, "Know what is the purpose of life that you are inclined to serve, that you are drawn to." Do what makes your heart leap rather than simply follow some style or fashion. Not everyone can or should be a scientists. Not everyone can or should be any one thing. People need to know what kind of purpose they can serve.

It's necessary to have a purpose in life. I would say that those who eventually end up taking drugs, that becomes their purpose, in an absence of any other purpose. So number one is to have a purpose. It can be different at different times in your life, as I see in my own life. Take good care of that purpose. Let that be your guide. This requires respecting our own individuality, our own uniqueness and that of others. The idea of being constructive, creative, positive, in trying to bring out the best in one's own self and the best in others follows from what I've just been saying. Again, I repeat my belief in us, in ourselves, as the product of the process of evolution, and part of the process itself. I think of evolution as an error-making and error-correcting process, and we are constantly learning from experience. It's the need to dedicate one's self in that way, to one's own self, and to choose an activity or life that is of value not only to yourself, but to others as well.
Some of your children are pursuing scientific research.
Jonas Salk: My three sons studied medicine. They are each doing something different with the background that they acquired. I am not practicing medicine, neither are they, but each of them is doing something that is connected with medicine. The one who comes closest to seeing patients is the youngest son, who is a psychiatrist. The other two are doing different things in research in one way or another.
You must be quite proud.
Jonas Salk: I'm pleased with them because they made these choices on their own. I tried to discourage them from going into medicine because I felt that it might not be the easiest way for them to express themselves individually. But they chose to do so. We have published work together, papers and books, and this relationship continues.
You have created this work of art in which some of the great scientists of the world come to work, and I can't help connecting that to the fact that you are married to a very fine artist. How has that bond affected your work?
Jonas Salk: My marriage to Françoise has been extremely rewarding. It provides the kind of human experience with someone who is a very highly evolved person, with many dimensions, and it's not only her artistic qualities, but her qualities as a human being and as a powerful intellect. That has been one of the great good fortunes in my life and my career. Just outside the door, there is a montage that I just hung yesterday that was made by her to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Institute. It will be a limited edition that we have made available which will be used for fund raising. It's interesting to see how she has incorporated the double helix and structures of fourteen molecules in this marvelous work of art. It's been a very integrating experience to be able to blend your life with a person who has the qualities of both a powerful intellect and a magnificent artist, wonderful writer.
Has it been difficult to balance the personal side of life with the tremendous drive of your professional side?
Jonas Salk: My life is pretty well at peace, and the profession is more of an avocation. It's a calling, if you like, rather than a job. I do what I feel impelled to do, as an artist would. Scientists function in the same way. I see all these as creative activities, as all part of the process of discovery. Perhaps that's one of the characteristics of what I call the evolvers, any subset of the population who keep things moving in a positive, creative, constructive way, revealing the truth and beauty that exists in life and in nature.
You see a very clear connection between science and art, because you are seeing patterns and designs in a creative way that no one has seen before.
Jonas Salk: Oh, yes. That's why Françoise dedicated one of her books: "To Jonas, who possesses the art of science." And one of my books I dedicated to her, as someone who illuminates all life. As I said earlier, each individual has their own telos. Each of us has an art in us, which is what we should express, practice.
What problem confronting society worries you the most right now?
Jonas Salk: I would say man's inhumanity to man. I think that this will require a bit longer in the evolutionary process, for the more humane aspects and attributes of human beings to be expressed, and the less humane to be suppressed, or not encouraged. We are our own worst enemy in that sense, and unless we cope with greed, inhumanity, and find a way to reduce those qualities and attributes and enhance the more positive, we will be fighting a losing battle. But I have the impression from the young people that I see that we may be seeing the flowering of humanity in that respect. I see weeds and flowers. I think of it in those terms, and we have to discriminate and distinguish between the two, to recognize and encourage those human qualities and attributes that are the more positive.

I judge things from an evolutionary perspective - "How does this serve and contribute to the process of our own evolution?" - rather than think of good and evil in moral terms. I see the triumph of good over evil as a manifestation of the error-correcting process of evolution. It is an attempt to get some distance from whence we have come and recognize that as we move into the future, it becomes necessary for us to think the way nature thinks. That's why I speak about universal evolution and teleological evolution, because I think the process of evolution reflects the wisdom of nature. I see the need for wisdom to become operative. We need to try to put all of these things together in what I call an evolutionary philosophy of our time.
Bless you for all you've done, and all you will do. Thank you.

In America in the 1950s, summertime was a time of fear and anxiety for many parents; this was the season when children by the thousands became infected with the crippling disease poliomyelitis, or polio. This burden of fear was lifted forever when it was announced that Dr. Jonas Salk had developed a vaccine against the disease. Salk became world-famous overnight, but his discovery was the result of many years of painstaking research.

Jonas Salk was born in New York City. His parents were Russian-Jewish immigrants who, although they themselves lacked formal education, were determined to see their children succeed, and encouraged them to study hard. Jonas Salk was the first member of his family to go to college. He entered the City College of New York intending to study law, but soon became intrigued by medical science.

While attending medical school at New York University, Salk was invited to spend a year researching influenza. The virus that causes flu had only recently been discovered and the young Salk was eager to learn if the virus could be deprived of its ability to infect, while still giving immunity to the illness. Salk succeeded in this attempt, which became the basis of his later work on polio.

After completing medical school and his internship, Salk returned to the study of influenza, the flu virus. World War II had begun, and public health experts feared a replay of the flu epidemic that had killed millions in the wake of the First World War. The development of vaccines controlled the spread of flu after the war, and the epidemic of 1919 did not recur.

In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh Medical School. While working there, with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, Salk saw an opportunity to develop a vaccine against polio, and devoted himself to this work for the next eight years.

In 1955, Salk's years of research paid off. Human trials of the polio vaccine effectively protected the subject from the polio virus. When news of the discovery was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a miracle worker. He further endeared himself to the public by refusing to patent the vaccine. He had no desire to profit personally from the discovery, but merely wished to see the vaccine disseminated as widely as possible.

Salk's vaccine was composed of "killed" polio virus, which retained the ability to immunize without running the risk of infecting the patient. A few years later, a vaccine made from live polio virus was developed, which could be administered orally, while Salk's vaccine required injection. Further, there was some evidence that the "killed" vaccine failed to completely immunize the patient. In the U.S., public health authorities elected to distribute the "live" oral vaccine instead of Salk's.

Tragically, the preparation of live virus infected some patients with the disease, rather than immunizing them. Since the introduction of the original vaccine, the few new cases of polio reported in the United States were probably caused by the "live" vaccine which was intended to prevent them. In countries where Salk's vaccine has remained in use, the disease has been virtually eradicated. In 1963, Salk founded the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies, an innovative center for medical and scientific research. Jonas Salk continued to conduct research and publish books, some written in collaboration with one or more of his sons, who are also medical scientists. Salk's published books include Man Unfolding - Salk's plea to "look at human life from a biological viewpoint" - (1972), The Survival of the Wisest(1973), World Population and Human Values: A New Reality (1981), and Anatomy of Reality (1983).

Dr. Salk's last years were spent searching for a vaccine against AIDS. Jonas Salk died on June 23, 1995. He was 80 years old. The 100th anniversary of his birth in 2014 was the occasion for renewed appreciation and celebration of Dr. Salk's contribution to humanity.

"We were told in one lecture that it was possible to immunize against diphtheria and tetanus by the use of chemically-treated toxins, or toxoids. And the following lecture, we were told that for immunization against a virus disease, you have to experience the infection, and that you could not induce immunity with the so-called 'killed' or inactivated, chemically-treated virus preparation. Well, somehow, that struck me. What struck me was that both statements couldn't be true. And I asked why this was so, and the answer that was given was in a sense, 'Because.' There was no satisfactory answer."

Jonas Salk was still a student when he began to look for a better answer to his classroom question, and the answer he found led to one of the most dramatic breakthroughs in the history of medicine.

In America in the 1950s, summertime was a time of fear and anxiety for many parents; this was the season when children by the thousands became infected with the crippling disease poliomyelitis, or polio. That burden of fear was lifted forever when it was announced that Dr. Jonas Salk had developed a vaccine against the disease. Salk became world-famous overnight, but his discovery was the result of many years of painstaking research.

Salk went on to found the Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, where he continued his research into the causes, prevention and cure of diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Dr. Salk never patented his polio vaccine, but distributed the formula freely, so the whole world could benefit from his discovery.

When did you first have a vision of what you might accomplish in the field you chose?
Jonas Salk: You never have an idea of what you might accomplish. All that you do is you pursue a question. And see where it leads. The first moment that a question occurred to me that did influence my future career, occurred in my second year at medical school. Although you must understand, all of the events that occurred before laid the foundation in a way. And if those events had not occurred, then that moment would have passed by quite differently. But as I tell the story...

We were told in one lecture that it was possible to immunize against diphtheria and tetanus by the use of chemically-treated toxins, or toxoids. And the following lecture, we were told that for immunization against a virus disease, you have to experience the infection, and that you could not induce immunity with the so-called "killed" or inactivated, chemically-treated virus preparation. Well, somehow, that struck me. The way it struck me was that both statements couldn't be true. I asked why this was so, and the answer that was given was, in a sense, "Because." There was no satisfactory answer.

Perhaps it had been tried and had not succeeded. There had not been any success. And I think that in fact was true. But it was some two years later, I think it was, that...

I had an opportunity to spend time in elective periods in my last year in medical school, in a laboratory that was involved in studies on influenza. The influenza virus had just been discovered about a few years before that. And I saw the opportunity at that time to test the question as to whether we could destroy the virus infectivity and still immunize. And so, by carefully designed experiments, we found that it was possible to do so.

That was how that particular line of investigation, you might say - and it influenced my career - occurred.It was, in a sense, a paradox.It didn't make sense, and that question persisted in my mind.I had forgotten about it in the interim.I was pursuing another path, I was interested in chemistry, I was interested in the rheumatic diseases, and since I was not able to pursue that in that particular lecture period, and by chance I found myself in this laboratory, I pursued that question, from then on. I interrupted those studies because I graduated from medical school and interned. The war broke out, influenza was important, and I continued on in research in that field, developed a flu vaccine, and that led to all sorts of other things.
How did your work with the polio vaccine come about?
Jonas Salk: After my internship, in '42, I went to Ann Arbor, Michigan. I was there until '47, then went on to Pittsburgh, to be somewhat independent of my mentor. The opportunity in Pittsburgh was something that others did not see, and I was advised against doing something as foolish as that because there was so little there. However, I did see that there was an opportunity to do two things. One was to continue the work I was doing on influenza, and two, to begin to work on polio. That was a very modest beginning.

Within a few months after I arrived in Pittsburgh, I was visited by the director of research of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, asking if I would be willing to participate in a program on typing polio viruses. I'd had no experience in working with polio, but this provided me with an opportunity, just as the work on influenza did. So I seized upon that opportunity. It gave me a chance to get funds, to get laboratory facilities, to get equipment, to hire staff, and to build up something that was not there. It also would provide me with an opportunity to learn about how you work with the polio virus.

That experience was looked upon by most people as routine drudgery. It wasn't that way to me, because instantly I saw that there were more efficient ways of typing viruses than were proposed by those who set forth the protocol that I was supposed to follow. It didn't take long for them to realize that I saw the world differently, and that I could make things work more efficiently and effectively. In the course of that work, it became obvious to me that we had the ways and means for moving ahead toward vaccine development. We knew there were three types of the virus. John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins at Harvard had just grown the virus in tissue culture. I didn't delay. I didn't waste any time, just picked up these methods and techniques, and began to advance them even further ahead than those who initiated the work. By putting the bits and pieces together, I moved very quickly into studies in animals, and then on humans.
What attracted you to the notion of using a killed vaccine? That goes back to your influenza work, doesn't it?
Jonas Salk: The reason for pursuing the idea of a killed virus vaccine is very simple. Before the work on influenza, the effective vaccines were those made with what we call attenuated, or so-called weakened viruses. They have the capacity to infect, but they are less likely to cause disease. Now sometimes smallpox or vaccinia virus - which is the same virus that is used to make immunization against smallpox - would cause serious reactions, and sometimes fatal reactions. There was a rabies vaccine that was made from weakened viruses. There was also a yellow fever vaccine that had been developed that was a weakened virus.

The principle that I tried to establish was really that it was not necessary to run the risk of infection, which would have been the case if one were to try to develop an attenuated or weakened polio virus vaccine. And so it seemed to me the safer and more certain way to proceed. That if we could inactivate the virus that we could move on to a vaccine very quickly. Whereas, if you were dealing with weakened virus, you would have to demonstrate its safety eventually. So that was the reasoning and there was a principle that was involved. You might say a scientific principle, a fundamental principle: choosing and preferring that which - the safety which you could control, and the quantities which you could use. So that this is, in a way, a more scientific approach. Trying to work like nature, instead of imitating nature.

Therefore, I wanted simply to select a variant that was weakened, you might say. At that time I was behaving like a medical scientist. Exploring the limits within which one could effectively immunize with a non-replicating, non-multiplying virus. So, it was not a matter of why I chose that. I was investigating to see whether it could be done - and it could be done.

And, then we determined the parameters within which, in terms of dose and quantity and duration and persistence, and what kind of immunity, if an immune response was required. And that way, I began to develop an understanding of the principles of vaccinology as applied to polio miletus as well as influenza. So, that was the attitude that prevailed at that time. It was not simply empirical. It was a theoretical experimental approach.
You got quite a bit of flack for that because no one had done it before, and you were going out on a limb.
Jonas Salk: I wasn't going out on a limb. The flack to which you refer is what taught me, very early on, not only about the human side of nature, but about the human side of science.

Keys to success - Perseverance

There are three stages of truth. First, is that it can't be true, and that's what they said. You couldn't immunize against polio with a killed-virus vaccine. Second phase, they say, "Well, if it's true, it's not very important." And the third stage is, "Well, we've known it all along." What you are describing is the process that you have to go through when you come up with an idea that has not yet been tried or tested. While it is true that this involves personalities, it also involves different ways of seeing. It was not a matter of a popularity contest, it was not a matter of anything other than that my curiosity drove me to find out whether it could work or not.

So, it started with you doubting something that everyone else assumed was true?
Jonas Salk: I didn't doubt it. I just questioned the logic of it, the reasonableness of it, when other people accepted it. I just didn't accept what appeared to me to be a dogmatic assertion in view of the fact that there was a reason to think otherwise. So that it was not merely doubting a belief, there was a principle involved. I try to understand the laws of nature, the principles that are involved, and that's what I've attempted to do ever since then, in the development of what I think of as the science of vaccinology, which had not been a science prior thereto. I entered medicine with the idea of bringing science into medicine. I had the opportunity to investigate this question scientifically, thinking and working as a scientist.

I was not trained as a scientist. I was trained in medicine, And, so my functioning, you might say, as a medical scientist, came through being self-taught through the experience of investigating the questions that were of interest to me. And, I had no formal training as a virologist, or as an immunologist. But, I learned what I needed to know in order to address those questions.

I have tried to understand how viruses work, how viruses think, how the immune system works and other questions that pertain to my interests, whether it was cancer or immune disease, or multiple sclerosis, and now AIDS. But I am also interested in the human side of these issues.

Why do I see things differently from the way other people see them? Why do I pursue the questions that I pursue, even if others regard them as, as they say, "controversial?" Which merely means that they have a difference of opinion. They see things differently. I am interested both in nature and in the human side of nature, and how the two can be brought together, and effective in a useful way.
When you were working on the polio vaccine, was there a moment of discovery, or a moment of realization?
Jonas Salk: There was a moment at which we recognized the antibody response had been produced in human subjects. That was in September of 1952. We saw what I call a flicker of antibody response which was real and substantial. That was the first evidence that we were able to do in humans what we could do in animals.
How did that feel?
Jonas Salk: It was nice to know that we were on the right track. It was the encouraging sign, and it sort of opened the way. It's like seeing the light, you might say. Anytime you get a "yes" from a person or from nature, it is encouraging. It's affirming.
Since the success of the vaccine came when you were at a pretty young age, we might imagine that you walked into a laboratory and there it was. I'm sure it wasn't that easy. What things didn't work out that led you to what did work out?
Jonas Salk: As I look upon the experience of an experimentalist, everything that you do is, in a sense, succeeding. It's telling you what not to do, as well as what to do. Not infrequently, I go into the laboratory, and people would say something didn't work. And I say, "Great, we've made a great discovery!" If you thought it was going to work, and it didn't work, that tells you as much as if it did. So my attitude is not one of pitfalls; my attitude is one of challenges and "What is nature telling me?"

This ideal, this idealized notion that discovery, so to speak, is just something falling into your lap! It's recognizing something that you might not have anticipated. Or designing an experiment and finding out that it fits within certain parameters, and you see what the patterns of the response are. And basically, it's entering into a dialogue with nature.

Now, some people might look at something and let it go by, because they don't recognize the pattern and the significance. It's the sensitivity to pattern recognition that seems to me to be of great importance. It's a matter of being able to find meaning, whether it's positive or negative, in whatever you encounter. It's like a journey. It's like finding the paths that will allow you to go forward, or that path that has a block that tells you to start over again or do something else.
Did such a thing happen during the studies with the polio vaccine?
Jonas Salk: The work on polio went rather smoothly, because it was following a smooth and simple path. There was one episode that occurred, after field trials, when the vaccine was licensed. Within a matter of two weeks after it was in use, there was a report of cases of polio caused by the vaccine. Now, there was no such encounter in the field trial, and it was only as a result of the vaccine from one particular laboratory, but not the others. Well, this was a source of immediate concern, a terrible disappointment, a tragic disappointment. When we looked into that, it became clear immediately that this manufacturer did not follow the procedures that were set forth. It was partly because of a disregard for the new principles that were introduced in order to make sure that the vaccine would be safe, as well as effective. This was an example of disbelief that it was necessary to go through the routine that was set forth.

That had some adverse effects in terms of credibility, which was not attributable correctly to the work I did. This was the exception that proved the rule that proved how right we were in the way in which we had proceeded. That was something from which it was necessary to recover. Our vaccine was suspended. Its use was suspended for a short period of time, reintroduced again after that problem was isolated and that vaccine was withdrawn. All the others were used and things then proceeded in the normal fashion. That's just an example of the hazards that one has to deal with, particularly at that level of experimentation.
You obviously had tremendous confidence in this vaccine. Was it nerve-wracking when you first tested this on humans?
Jonas Salk: Yes. What I had confidence in were the results that we had obtained as we went along. We had to understand how to destroy virus infectivity, so that we could do it reliably. Nevertheless, the first time that humans were inoculated it was a matter of some concern. Unknown events might have taken place, things that might have been overlooked. There was some apprehension until that phase of the experiment was over.

Before the field trial, I did a test in about 5,000 school children in the city of Pittsburgh which was of the nature to make sure that things did go well, before we went ahead and put this out on a much larger scale. And so, while it is true that we proceed on the basis of things that we know, about which we can have confidence, so to speak, that when you engage in human experimentation, you must proceed in a somewhat cautious manner and be prepared for the unforeseen and the unknowable.
Did you try to keep the experiments a secret?
Jonas Salk: We didn't work at keeping the experiments a secret, but we didn't make it public. Obviously, it was being carried out in an institution, lots of people knew about it. But we were not about to announce in the press because that was not the style in that day. The press was much less sophisticated in this regard. I saw no reason to try to carry out laboratory experimentation under a spotlight, any more than I would want to have the press in my laboratory, recording everything that is going on. There was a good deal of human interest involved, but that was not the primary objective. It would have been distracting, as it is now. I still preserve that attitude.

We began studies in humans in July of 1952, and what we were doing was not known, generally speaking, until the end of January. There was a leak by Earl Wilson, the columnist for one of the New York newspapers, who heard of a meeting in which I spoke - the advisory committee of the March of Dimes, to reveal to them what we had learned. Earl Wilson called Howard Howe, of Johns Hopkins University, thinking that it was his work that was referred to, because he had been carrying out studies in monkeys and chimpanzees. Howard Howe said no, it was not he, it was Jonas Salk. And that's how Earl Wilson got the story. That leak revealed that we had already inoculated human subjects, and the work had not yet been prepared for publication. So I quickly got underway, and within two months we had the results of the work published. Then everyone knew what was going on.
Can you describe the day that the results of the national trial were announced? That was a pretty big deal.
Jonas Salk: It was on April 12, 1955, that the announcement was made by Dr. Francis, who had conducted the field trial. He was my mentor back at New York University and at Pittsburgh in the work on influenza. He had agreed to conduct these field trials for the March of Dimes. That was a very public event, and it was done with great fanfare. Many people were invited, scientists and non-scientists. It was held in Ann Arbor, staged by the University of Michigan, using this occasion to draw attention to what had been done.

It was then that I became looked upon as a public figure, and I had to fight and struggle to continue on with my work. It was a big event, and it was a time when the news was good. I was not on the outside, I was on the inside. I learned what it was like on the outside later. When people meet me even now, they remember exactly the moment when this announcement was made, and the events that followed.
There was a tremendous rejoicing, wasn't there?
Jonas Salk: I suppose so. There was a great rejoicing, obviously. Because of the freedom from fear, or the relief that comes from, "Now I know what to do in order to try to prevent the occurrence of this fearsome possibility."
Were you interested in science as a child?
Jonas Salk: As a child I was not interested in science. I was merely interested in things human, the human side of nature, if you like, and I continue to be interested in that. That's what motivates me. And, in a way it's the human dimension that has intrigued me.
Were you a curious kid, about nature and that sort of thing?
Jonas Salk: I think I was curious from the earliest age on. There was a photograph of me when I was a year old and there was that look of curiosity on that infant's face that is inescapable. I have the suspicion that this curiosity was very much a part of my early life: asking questions about unreasonableness. I tended to observe, and reflect and wonder. That sense of wonder, I think, is built into us.
It's often said that the curiosity and wonder of childhood is sort of beaten down in us as we grow up.
Jonas Salk: Yes, I don't think I shared it too much with others. I kept it pretty much to myself, and when I reached that age at which I could do something about it, then I did. So it was not suppressed or destroyed.

It's that curiosity that bursts in childhood, during the period of play and creativity that reveals what we're trying to say. That's the nature of the human being. That's what is the nature of the human species, as distinct from other species, where we see this enormous creativity because we are responsible for all that has been created, beyond that which nature has done.
Obviously, you were doing a lot of thinking at an early age. Did you get along with your classmates? Were you sociable?
Jonas Salk: I got along with my classmates, but I was not as sociable a child. I could spend time by myself and I still do. I would say that I spent more time alone than I did in social settings. Part of this was probably attributed to my mother's over-protectiveness, lest I hurt myself, or be injured in some way. How much of this is innate, and how much of this came about through that kind of nurturing, I can't say. Nevertheless, I did learn in time that I could spend time alone, as I do, walking on the beach. I spend time with others, of course, but also enjoy time with myself.
How did you decide to become a scientist? Did this happen in high school?
Jonas Salk: At some point, I recall having the ambition to study law, to be elected to Congress, and to try to make just laws, but I didn't pursue the study of law, for a curious reason. My mother didn't think I'd make a very good lawyer. And I believe that her reasons were that I couldn't really win an argument with her.

This change took place between leaving high school and entering college. I entered college enrolled as a pre-law student, but I changed to pre-med after I went through some soul searching as to what I would do other than the study of the law. My mother's preference was that I should be a teacher, but that didn't appeal to me. I was interested in science, and I began to think about the scientific aspect of medicine. My intention was to go to medical school, and then become a medical scientist. I did not intend to practice medicine, although in medical school, and in my internship, I did all the things that were necessary to qualify me in that regard. I had opportunities along the way to drop the idea of medicine and go into science.

At one point at the end of my first year of medical school, I received an opportunity to spend a year in research and teaching in biochemistry, which I did. And at the end of that year, I was told that I could, if I wished, switch and get a Ph.D. in biochemistry but my preference was to stay with medicine. And, I believe that this is all linked to my original ambition, or desire, which was to be of some help to humankind, so to speak, in a larger sense than just on a one-to-one basis.

Just as I intended to study law, to make just laws, so I found myself interested now in the laws of nature, as distinct from the laws the people make.
How did your parents react to your decision to go into medicine and science? Were they encouraging?
Jonas Salk: Well, my parents were more than supportive, my mother particularly. My mother had no schooling. She came to this country from Russia in 1901. She immediately, as a young girl, began to work, you know, to help support the family. And she was very ambitious in a sense for her children. She wanted her children to have more than she had, so that she lived her life and invested her life, lived through her children.

I was the eldest of three sons and the favorite and the one who had all of her attention, certainly until my little brother was born - I was about five years old then - and my youngest brother when I was about 12. I was essentially an only child in the sense of having her interest and concerns and attention. She wanted to be sure that we all were going to advance in the world. Therefore we were encouraged in our studies, and overly protected in many ways. There was encouragement in general, but not particularly in any way, because there wasn't the same kind of culture that could lead to a particular orientation.
What did your father do?
Jonas Salk: My father was a designer of ladies' neckwear: blouses and things of that kind. He was a more artistic person. He was a designer in the garment industry, so to speak. He had not quite graduated from high school, only from elementary school.

We were not brought up in a family which was already cultured. My mother's children and my father's children were the first of their respective generations that went on to college.

So, there was something special in the household that was very nurturing for - shall we say - advancing in the world, getting ahead. But whether it was in business or in law or in medicine, so to speak, was not of great concern.
It's very inspiring that you didn't come from illustrious scientists. You can accomplish great things even if you are the first in your family to go to college.
Jonas Salk: Absolutely. There weren't any role models in my life, in that sense.
Where do you think your sense of wanting to do something for humankind came from?
Jonas Salk: I believe that this is part of our nature, and part of an ancestral heritage. That's how we got to be where we are, through people who performed or functioned that way, or had that drive, or the desire or ambition, which I look upon as a natural phenomenon. Some people are constructive, if you like. Others are destructive. It's this diversity in humankind that results in some making positive contributions and some negative contributions. It's necessary to have enough who make positive contributions to overcome the problems of each age.
It sounds like you felt a personal sense of duty to do something for the world. Was that something your parents instilled in you?
Jonas Salk: I have the impression that people like that are born as well as made. You are born with that instinct. Even if there is not encouragement, you overcome the resistances to any opposition, if that's the kind of person that you are. I think there is something inherited. We talk about the innate versus the acquired, about nature versus nurture. Our nature is revealed in the course of our life experience, and the nurturing comes from the opportunities that are available. If I were born in some other country, for example, my life would have been quite different.
What books were you attracted to when you were growing up?
Jonas Salk: As a matter of fact, I was not a great reader. I spent a good deal of time thinking, as I still do, about what went on in my life, my own observations and reflections. I did read what was part of schooling, but I was not an avid reader. There are a few significant books that I recall: Microbe Hunters and The Life of Louis Pasteur. I remember reading, as an adolescent, a book called The Island Within by Ludwig Lewisohn. The idea of the "island within" gives you the sense of the resonance that this had for me, because of my sense of myself, and the dialogues that I had with myself.
Early on in your career, was there someone who gave you an important break?
Jonas Salk: At the end of my first year of medical school, the professor of chemistry, Dr. R. Keith Cannon, tapped me on the shoulder and asked me to come to see him. I was quite sure that he was going to tell me that I was failing and give me some bad news.

Instead of which, he offered me an opportunity to drop out for a year and work with him in chemistry, during which time I could have my first experience in research, and also as a student teacher, so to speak. Since my desire, from the time I entered medical school, was to enter into and to do scientific research, that was the break that I seized upon.

It was a difficult decision to make, because I would have to leave my class, be alone, and in a sense be exceptional for that year, and then return to anther class. Nevertheless, I had the courage to do so.
That was an important year. You got quite a lot of work done in that year, didn't you?
Jonas Salk: I didn't get very much work done, in that sense. It was not an accomplished year, but it was the year that initiated a process. That was what was important. It was not the product of that year, but the initiation of a process, setting out on a path. It's important to recognize that sometimes at a turning point, what's important is to let go of the way you were going, or the way you are, to explore a new direction.
It sounds like a risk that really paid off.
Jonas Salk: Risks, I like to say, always pay off. You learn what to do, or what not to do. I like to say "nothing ventured, nothing gained." If I had failed to take advantage of that opportunity, I would not have known what I would have missed. That was the beginning of many similar opportunities which have come my way.
You mentioned earlier that you were not classically trained; you didn't have the Ph.D. Why did you choose to pursue your career in the unconventional way you did?
Jonas Salk: It was not unconventional at that time. At that time, medical scientists were self-made. Jenner, who developed the vaccine against small pox, was not specifically trained. Pasteur was a biochemist. There wasn't a particular pattern, which provided me with a degree of freedom. In spite of the fact that I did not have any formal training, I still was able to contribute in these ways, which allowed me to pick and choose whatever it was that I needed to know to address that question, bringing to bear whatever tools or techniques or knowledge I might need to obtain the answer.
You had phenomenal success in your work, but I gather there were some setbacks along the way. It seems shocking today, but you were turned down by a couple of institutes that you applied to after medical school.
Jonas Salk: In fact, my entering the field that led to work in vaccines came about as a result of my being denied an opportunity to work at another institution.

There are two great tragedies in life. One is to not get what you want; the other is to get what you want. And if I had gotten what I wanted, it would have been a greater tragedy than my not getting what I wanted, because it allowed me to get something else.
Tell us where you applied that you didn't get in.
Jonas Salk: I applied to a laboratory at a medical school that was interested in pathological disorders, diseases involving the immune system. I had also applied to a laboratory at Columbia University. I know how disappointed we all are, not to get what we want. But, the question is should that discourage us? That was not my attitude. My attitude was always to keep open, to keep scanning. I think that's how things work in nature. Many people are close-minded, rigid, and that's not my inclination.
Did you ever doubt yourself when you got turned down from these places?
Jonas Salk: I would say evidently not. I was merely looking for opportunities. And it was the opportunity that came first. It was not a test of me. In some instances, I was aware that there was a tendency toward favoritism or discrimination. In some instances, antisemitism played a role. I always realized that was always a factor. In fact, I almost didn't get into medical school because of quotas at that time. So, I was prepared for other eventualities. I was already prepared to go to graduate school to study endocrinology, for example, if I had not gone into medical school. It becomes necessary to be prepared for alternative paths. There may be a greater opportunity when something is denied.
How prevalent was polio when you began your research? It's hard for people growing up now to get a feeling for what the world was like then? Who was it striking? How was it spreading?
Jonas Salk: Poliomyelitis struck first at infants. That was why it was initially called infantile paralysis. But as hygienic conditions improved, the virus spread in the population in a different way than it did when hygienic conditions were poor. When hygienic conditions were poor, many infants died of diarrheal diseases. In the course of the infection that was spread that way, perhaps by exposure to sewage and unclean environments, they would very likely acquire the poliomyelitis virus infection, which, if it occurred in the first six months of life, would protect them against paralysis because of maternal antibody. After maternal antibody was lost, and the infection was acquired after six months of life, then paralysis would ensue. So at first it was an infection that would occur within the first six months to a year of life, or two or three years of life. But as time went on and hygienic conditions improved, they were spared the infantile infection, but were exposed later when paralysis could occur.

By the time the early 1950s appeared, about 25 percent of paralytic cases occurred in those 21 years of age and older. In fact, Franklin Roosevelt, who was a president of the United States, was paralyzed at the age of 39.

And so at that time the age distribution had changed. It was a disease that was spread less by water supply or by exposure to fecal contamination. It was spread now more by pharyngeal spread, in the family context or amongst playmates - the secretions of the nose and throat. Because the virus would enter the blood stream, it would multiply in the intestines, enter the blood stream, and then it would enter into the nervous system, the spinal cord - paralyze - but it would also appear in the throat. And then, it could spread that way in schools, and amongst playmates. Well that's how it was spread. As far as the incidence in the early 1950s - in the five years before the vaccine was available in '55 - about 25,000 cases occurred annually. The highest incidence was over 50,000 cases in 1953, I think it was. And this gives you some measure of the concern because it would crop up anywhere, at any time, without any forewarning.
How did the criticism affect you personally? Were you hurt by it, or did you just plow on?
Jonas Salk: I just plowed on. Hurt? That's one thing. Being deterred is another thing. And so, while we prefer to have an open path, one thing you learn in life is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. There's no way that everyone is going to agree and particularly if you go against the main stream.

Everyone at that time had their minds set on how they thought the problem ought to be dealt with, whether it was influenza or poliomyelitis or now even the work on AIDS. That's a characteristic of what I like to call the "evolutionary process."
It's unnerving to find that scientists who are bent on helping mankind get into these very bitter rivalries. Is that just a part of the field?
Jonas Salk: The contradiction is in your assertion. You say these scientists have a bent to help mankind. That's not what their objective is. If that was their objective, they might approach it somewhat differently. That is not necessarily the case. The motivation that drives us to do what we do is different in each instance. You begin to understand, from the effect it has produced, what is the person's real motivation. There are two aspects to our pursuits. You have to deal with nature, as I do when I go into the laboratory and do an experiment, and you have to deal with the human side of nature, which concerns how colleagues or others will react. This is what piqued my curiosity early in life. It continues to pique my curiosity. That's what I think of as the human dimension.
It sounds like you have to develop a fairly thick skin in this field.
Jonas Salk: You have to develop a thick skin in life. It's not in this field only. You might think of the ideal of the scientists, the ivory tower, the idealist. That's true of some. And, I wouldn't guess as to what proportion. But there are some who are of that character, and there are some who are not. What comes to mind now, as I often think of this, it's like a sea gull syndrome. I call them sea gull syndrome. When I walk on the beach, I see the sea gulls, going out and getting a fish or a piece of bread on the beach. And the others go after him, that one, rather than go get their own. And so, I see sometimes that if someone does something and gets credit for it, then there is this tendency to have this competitive response.
You achieved your success early on, which probably created a lot of jealousy.
Jonas Salk: Yes. I received an inordinate amount of attention and recognition, out of proportion to what was contributed scientifically. It came about altogether because of the relief from fear. It was a human response on the part of the public. But from the point of view of the scientific community, they would see it differently. That was an adverse side effect. But it also provided opportunities in other ways. These are the prices; one has to pay for the pluses as well as the minuses.
How did you react to that instant world-hero status? Were there tragic aspects to your loss of anonymity?
Jonas Salk: Yes, there were. I suddenly found myself being treated like a public figure, or a hero. I was no longer able to use my time altogether at my own discretion, but I made every effort to do so. And before not too long, things quieted down. From that point of view, it was a unique experience, not to be repeated again. It was not unlike the ending of a war, if you like. People often say they remember two things. They remember the polio episode and they remember Jack Kennedy's assassination. That is how these two things associate in the minds of people. That was the mood of the country and the world at the time.

I felt myself very much like someone in the eye of a hurricane because all this swirling was going on around me. It was at that moment that everything changed. It was Edward R. Murrow, the journalist and newscaster that said to me that evening, "Young man, a great tragedy has just befallen you." I said, "What's that, Ed?" He said, "You've just lost your anonymity."
Even today, there is debate about the vaccines. There was widespread use of Sabin's vaccine, beginning in the '60s, until very recently. As you know, it's been proven to be the leading cause of polio in this country. Did the AMA (American Medical Association) make a mistake in endorsing Sabin's vaccine?
Jonas Salk: Well, it's a good way to put the question. The oral vaccine developed by Sabin is a live vaccine. That decision, that deliberate shift in policy, was made at a time when we already knew that the vaccine-associated cases were occurring, and I had a difficulty understanding the logic of that, I must say. Was that a wise decision? Should this simply have been allowed to proceed in a natural way without declaring any preference, and let nature take its course? If you look at the story in the Scandinavian countries, where the killed-virus vaccine was used, polio has been eradicated. Here we continue to have vaccine-associated polio, even though there are parts of the world, underdeveloped countries, where the live-virus vaccine is not working and the killed-virus vaccine is being used. In Israel, just recently, they decided to use the killed-vaccine first, followed by the live vaccine. I always find policies like that really political rather than scientific. They are using the killed vaccine to make the live vaccine safe. But do you need the live vaccine to make the killed vaccine effective?

It's clear now, from everything we know, that it is safer and more certain to vaccinate by injection than by mouth. I say it in that way to get away from "live" versus "killed." If you give it by injection, then you know what you are putting in. You know the effect that it is going to have, whereas if you give it by mouth, you don't know whether or not the virus is going to become activated in a pathogenic way, in the sense of causing the disease either in the recipients, or in contacts. We also know that in parts of the world where other viruses inhabit the intestinal tract, there are inhibitors that prevent the live virus vaccine from taking effect.

I predict that - in order to eradicate polio from the population so that you don't have to immunize against polio anymore, because you have eliminated the virus from the natural reservoir - the killed virus vaccine will have to be used. It now is possible with fewer doses to produce uniform protection that is life-long. It wasn't believed to be so by others; I knew it was. So many assertions were made to discredit the use of the inactive virus vaccine which had no basis in scientific reality.

It's another place that I learned about the human side of science, the human side of nature. I've learned a lot, not only about the immune system, but about human systems. I have come to appreciate how the evolutionary process works. I see evolution as error making and error correction. Whatever errors were made are going to be corrected. In my own judgment, if they had not taken that position at that time, polio would have been eradicated from the United States much sooner. In a matter of just a few years, the incidence of the disease was reduced by 95 percent. The remainder would have been taken care of simply with time. The idea of shifting from one preparation to another had reasons that were beyond the realm of science.
How do you see the role of teamwork in science? You've certainly gone your own way and had tremendous courage in your personal convictions, but you can't do it all yourself. How do you balance that?
Jonas Salk: It was possible to do what I've done simply because others did see what I saw. You can have a team of unconventional thinkers, as well as conventional thinkers. If you don't have the support of others you cannot achieve anything altogether on your own. It's like a cry in the wilderness. In each instance there were others who could see the same thing, and there were others who could not. It's an obvious difference we see in those who you might say have a bird's eye view, and those who have a worm's eye view. I've come to realize that we all have a different mind set, we all see things differently, and that's what the human condition is really all about.

Therefore, since whatever we do has to be part of a team, part of a community, we have to attempt to bring together those who have the same conviction, see the same things. Then it becomes a matter of time, when one or the other will prevail. Fortunately, there is all this diversity, and if not for that, problems would not be solved. If everyone saw things in a certain way, and it was the - quote- wrong way, it would not lead to the path of solution. If we were to study the anatomy of success, then a great deal would be learned about the human attributes are associated with success. I think a great deal about that.
What are those attributes?
Jonas Salk: Well, I play with words. And at the moment, for some time now, I've been playing with the words that distinguish between what I call "evolvers" and "maintainers of the status quo."

The evolvers are people who cause things to change. The maintainers of the status quo do everything to keep things from changing.

And, there I see differences in perception, differences in vision, differences in interpretation, and differences in temperament, in personality. The number of evolvers are much fewer than the maintainers of the status quo. And, amongst the evolvers, there are some who are initiators, some who go along with what other people recognize to be new or different.

I have come to associate the kind of success that you're referring to, to individuals who have a combination of attributes that are often associated with creativity. In a way they are mutants, they're different from others and they follow their own drummer. We know what that means. And, either you are like that or you're not like that. If you are, then it would be well to recognize that there were others before you. And, people like that are not very happy or content, until they are allowed to express, or they can express what's in them to express.

We know what that means. Are we all like that? We are not like that. If you are, then it would be well to recognize that there were others before you. People like that are not very happy or content, until they are allowed to express what's in them to express. It's that driving force that I think is like the process of evolution working on us, and in us, and with us, and through us. That's how we continue on, and will improve our lot in life, solve the problems that arise partly out of necessity, partly out of this drive to improve.
What role does instinct play in decision-making? Has your gut ever sent you in a surprising direction?
Jonas Salk: I call that intuition. My last book is called The Anatomy of Reality; the subtitle is The Merging of Intuition and Reason. Reason alone will not serve. Intuition alone can be improved by reason, but reason alone without intuition can easily lead the wrong way.

The both are necessary. The way I like to put it is that I might have an intuition about something, I send it over to the reason department. Then after I've checked it out in the reason department, I send it back to the intuition department to make sure that it's still all right. For myself, that's how my mind works, and that's how I work. That's why I think that there is both an art and a science to what we do. The art of science is as important as so-called technical science. You need both. It's this combination that must be recognized and acknowledged and valued.
What led you to make the tremendous investment of time in founding your own institute here in San Diego?
Jonas Salk: It was not founding my own institute, just to put it into perspective. In the mid-'50s, soon after the work on polio was done, I put it then, "All of the problems of man would not be solved in the laboratory." Which was another way of saying that there is a human dimension to science. From what you've already heard, or what we've already talked about, you gather that I've had experiences that led me to that strong conviction. I also saw the need for fundamental studies in biology to help give us the basic background on which to understand about the problems of cancer, for example, or autoimmune disease.

Eventually I knew that the neurosciences were going to be terribly important. I also recognized that it would be necessary to address the human dimension as well, appreciating how much more morbidity and mortality is associated with war, with crime, drug abuse and so forth. And so, I thought that it would be well to consider establishing an institution that would be concerned not merely with nature, but with the human side of nature, not only with the molecular, cellular dimension, but what I call the human dimension. I thought if such individuals were to work together in the same context that we would begin to understand a great deal more, much more about these different realms by their commingling.
This is a unique institution in that regard, is it not?
Jonas Salk: It's a unique idea. And it was an idea that was articulated before its time. But now, it is so obvious that this is what's needed, that others are moving ahead in this respect. The institute has not addressed the human dimension directly, in the work it is doing at the present time, although it did in the beginning. But that will probably change. However, that was addressed in the establishment of the institute and the creation of this marvelous architectural setting, where people could do scientific work in a work of art, to see what would happen if you set up what I call a crucible for creativity.

It was set up on the basis of an evolutionary philosophy, acknowledging that it would be here long into the future. It was designed to invite change both structurally and in the laboratories and spaces, and also organizationally, and in subject matter. So, without my being conscious of what I was doing, intuitively I was expressing something that might be thought of more in the realm of a work of art, which I attempted to do in a scientific and rational way as well.

The institute has been quite successful, in its way. I think it will be successful in other ways in the future if this philosophy continues to prevail. When I attempted to do what I did, people questioned it, and said, "Scientists work in laboratories, they look into microscopes, they work in basements." And I said, "Yes that's true. I did all that myself but I want to see what happens if you do the experiment the other way. How will we know what might happen, unless we try? That was part of the motivation.

I also felt the need myself to lead a double life, because of my dual interests in nature and the human side of nature. I see myself as having some artistic and philosophical inclinations. And I tried to create a place for people like myself. I didn't find too many who fit those specifications, but a great many who liked being here, and who I think have been strongly influenced by the interactions that take place. It's only 30 years now since the institution began. It's still rather young in a long future, and all that will be revealed in time.
You certainly have attracted many of the greatest scientific minds of the time here.
Jonas Salk: Yes, but I would say that was part of the design. I was looking for people of size, of quality. The selection process at the beginning I was hoping would continue. That's how nature works, you might say, through the process of natural selection. Well, this process of selection is also part of natural selection.
What mystery would you most like to crack now? What would you most like to accomplish?
Jonas Salk: Apart from the work that we are doing on AIDS, what's of greatest interest to me now is an idea that I have written about and continue to pursue - the idea of what I call "universal evolution." I see ourselves as the product of the process of evolution, and we become the process itself. I see the continuity from what appears to be the beginning of time, when pre-biological evolution took place, and biological evolution, and then when the human mind came upon the scene and the emergence of ideas - accumulative genes, which I see as manifestations of the process of evolution at work on the gray matter. I am interested in a phase that I think we are entering. I call it "teleological evolution," evolution with a purpose.

The idea of evolution by design, designing the future, anticipating the future. I think of the need for more wisdom in the world, to deal with the knowledge that we have. At one time we had wisdom, but little knowledge. Now we have a great deal of knowledge, but do we have enough wisdom to deal with that knowledge?

I define wisdom as the capacity to make retrospective judgments prospectively. I think these are human qualities, human attributes that need to be brought out, need to be drawn upon, need to be valued.
How do you do that?
Jonas Salk: I think it happens by experience, by example, by recognition that we have these qualities and attributes. They have to be there to be activated. You can't put them in; it would require the equivalent to genetic engineering. What you see in living systems, and in genetic systems, is that the genes are already there, having arisen in the course of time, and when they are needed they become activated. If they had to be invented, the time would be too late. By the same token, I think that the people who are needed to help guide the future already exist. They simply need to recognize this in themselves, react to the opportunities that prevail, and also be valued and be encouraged. It's that very large, and as yet amorphous, rung that is of interest to me. I hope to articulate this, and see to what extent it makes sense to others as well.
Medically speaking, what do you see as the great frontier for the next generation?
Jonas Salk: To tell you the truth, I think the next great frontier is going to be the recognition and understanding of how the brain works. To develop, to cultivate, to maintain what I call "gray matter." We've been focusing on the molecular and cellular events of the genetic system, the immune system, the nervous system and the brain. It's that function of the brain that we associate with. I use the term "gray matter" simply to focus attention on the need to understand how our minds work, and how we can use our minds to better advantage for enhancing health, for enhancing the positive and reducing the negative.

I could speak about the advances that you could expect in surgery, or the advances in genetic engineering, and the capacity to develop new vaccines, and ways of regulating the immune system, and about the hormones and peptides, and other reagents that can be used for improving brain function. But what concerns me most is how human beings behave. If you stop and think about that, this is perhaps the most critically important consideration. Not only for how we behave in the world and in relation to each other, but from a medical point of view, in terms of individual health and well-being. The responsibility we take for our own lives, whether it's that of a drug user, or of one who is at high risk of developing HIV or AIDS, or any other consideration that requires wisdom. It's in the human dimension, as distinct from the molecular-cellular, if I could make this contrast, trying to understand the whole, which is far greater than the sum of the parts. That is where I sense the need for a new kind of mind, for individuals who are integrators, as distinct from the reductionists, or reductionists who could integrate as well.
These sound like people in the evolver category.
Jonas Salk: Indeed. That's why I'm likely to call this next book The Evolvers, to help people recognize these qualities and characteristics which they possess naturally.
What personal characteristics do you think are most important for success in any field?
Jonas Salk: The first thing I would like to point out is that each of us have a different purpose that we have to serve in the evolutionary scheme of things. We are not all equally endowed to do everything. When I speak about teleological evolution, I speak about the idea of "telos," purpose. Socrates said, "Know thyself," meaning, "Know what is the purpose of life that you are inclined to serve, that you are drawn to." Do what makes your heart leap rather than simply follow some style or fashion. Not everyone can or should be a scientists. Not everyone can or should be any one thing. People need to know what kind of purpose they can serve.

It's necessary to have a purpose in life. I would say that those who eventually end up taking drugs, that becomes their purpose, in an absence of any other purpose. So number one is to have a purpose. It can be different at different times in your life, as I see in my own life. Take good care of that purpose. Let that be your guide. This requires respecting our own individuality, our own uniqueness and that of others. The idea of being constructive, creative, positive, in trying to bring out the best in one's own self and the best in others follows from what I've just been saying. Again, I repeat my belief in us, in ourselves, as the product of the process of evolution, and part of the process itself. I think of evolution as an error-making and error-correcting process, and we are constantly learning from experience. It's the need to dedicate one's self in that way, to one's own self, and to choose an activity or life that is of value not only to yourself, but to others as well.
Some of your children are pursuing scientific research.
Jonas Salk: My three sons studied medicine. They are each doing something different with the background that they acquired. I am not practicing medicine, neither are they, but each of them is doing something that is connected with medicine. The one who comes closest to seeing patients is the youngest son, who is a psychiatrist. The other two are doing different things in research in one way or another.
You must be quite proud.
Jonas Salk: I'm pleased with them because they made these choices on their own. I tried to discourage them from going into medicine because I felt that it might not be the easiest way for them to express themselves individually. But they chose to do so. We have published work together, papers and books, and this relationship continues.
You have created this work of art in which some of the great scientists of the world come to work, and I can't help connecting that to the fact that you are married to a very fine artist. How has that bond affected your work?
Jonas Salk: My marriage to Françoise has been extremely rewarding. It provides the kind of human experience with someone who is a very highly evolved person, with many dimensions, and it's not only her artistic qualities, but her qualities as a human being and as a powerful intellect. That has been one of the great good fortunes in my life and my career. Just outside the door, there is a montage that I just hung yesterday that was made by her to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Institute. It will be a limited edition that we have made available which will be used for fund raising. It's interesting to see how she has incorporated the double helix and structures of fourteen molecules in this marvelous work of art. It's been a very integrating experience to be able to blend your life with a person who has the qualities of both a powerful intellect and a magnificent artist, wonderful writer.
Has it been difficult to balance the personal side of life with the tremendous drive of your professional side?
Jonas Salk: My life is pretty well at peace, and the profession is more of an avocation. It's a calling, if you like, rather than a job. I do what I feel impelled to do, as an artist would. Scientists function in the same way. I see all these as creative activities, as all part of the process of discovery. Perhaps that's one of the characteristics of what I call the evolvers, any subset of the population who keep things moving in a positive, creative, constructive way, revealing the truth and beauty that exists in life and in nature.
You see a very clear connection between science and art, because you are seeing patterns and designs in a creative way that no one has seen before.
Jonas Salk: Oh, yes. That's why Françoise dedicated one of her books: "To Jonas, who possesses the art of science." And one of my books I dedicated to her, as someone who illuminates all life. As I said earlier, each individual has their own telos. Each of us has an art in us, which is what we should express, practice.
What problem confronting society worries you the most right now?
Jonas Salk: I would say man's inhumanity to man. I think that this will require a bit longer in the evolutionary process, for the more humane aspects and attributes of human beings to be expressed, and the less humane to be suppressed, or not encouraged. We are our own worst enemy in that sense, and unless we cope with greed, inhumanity, and find a way to reduce those qualities and attributes and enhance the more positive, we will be fighting a losing battle. But I have the impression from the young people that I see that we may be seeing the flowering of humanity in that respect. I see weeds and flowers. I think of it in those terms, and we have to discriminate and distinguish between the two, to recognize and encourage those human qualities and attributes that are the more positive.

I judge things from an evolutionary perspective - "How does this serve and contribute to the process of our own evolution?" - rather than think of good and evil in moral terms. I see the triumph of good over evil as a manifestation of the error-correcting process of evolution. It is an attempt to get some distance from whence we have come and recognize that as we move into the future, it becomes necessary for us to think the way nature thinks. That's why I speak about universal evolution and teleological evolution, because I think the process of evolution reflects the wisdom of nature. I see the need for wisdom to become operative. We need to try to put all of these things together in what I call an evolutionary philosophy of our time.
Bless you for all you've done, and all you will do. Thank you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jonas Salk, M.D. | Academy of Achievement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"We were told in one lecture that it was possible to immunize against diphtheria and tetanus by the use of chemically-treated toxins, or toxoids. And the following lecture, we were told that for immunization against a virus disease, you have to experience the infection, and that you could not induce immunity with the so-called 'killed' or inactivated, chemically-treated virus preparation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the early 1950s, the only thing scarier than the threat of nuclear war was the annual return of polio - an easily-spread, incurable disease that causes nerve damage, paralysis, and sometimes death. At the first sign of an outbreak, public hot spots like theaters and swimming pools would close up immediately.

One of the worst polio epidemics in the United States struck in 1952, a few years into the postwar baby boom. Polio is more likely to infect children than adults, so the race to create a vaccine reached a fever pitch.

Most researchers were looking into live-virus vaccines, which had worked nicely for smallpox and rabies and become the standard approach. But Jonas Salk, a medical researcher and budding virologist, was keen on the idea of safer, killed-virus vaccines. He believed the same principle would work for polio, and he was right. Within a few years of developing his vaccine, the number of polio cases in the United States dropped from ~29,000 in 1955 to less than 6,000 in 1957. By 1979, polio had been eradicated in the US.

Jonas Salk is one of science's folk heroes. The polio vaccine was actually his sophomore effort - he and Thomas Francis developed the first influenza vaccine in the 1940s. And he didn't stop with polio, either. Toward the end of his life, Salk was working on an AIDS vaccine.

A Doctor in the House

Jonas Salk was born in 1914 and raised in New York City. He was the oldest son of Russian-Jewish immigrants who didn't have much money or education, but wanted the best for their children.

Salk has said in interviews that he was not interested in science as a child - he was "merely interested in things human". The NYC polio epidemic of 1916 would have likely given Jonas an eyeful of humanity in the form of afflicted classmates with crutches and leg braces.

Jonas was a curious kid who read everything he could get his hands on. He had dreams of becoming a lawyer, but his mother wanted a doctor in the house. When Jonas was 13, he entered Townsend Harris High School, a public school for gifted students. Two years later at age 15, Jonas entered City College of New York (CCNY), where he would earn a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry. A fifteen-year-old college freshman at this competitive college was not particularly noteworthy, because many of the students there had skipped more than one grade.

After CCNY, Salk went to study medicine at NYU. It was here that he decided that although he liked medicine, he didn't want to practice it. Salk was more interested in research. He believed he was meant to help humankind rather than treat the individual.

The Flu Fighters

For thousands of years, people believed influenza, or the flu, was caused by bacteria. The influenza virus was first discovered in the early 1930s, around the time Salk entered med school. In his senior year, he had a chance to spend time in a lab that was researching influenza, and he jumped on it. Salk believed that the virus strains could be effectively destroyed and still immunize, and he was eager to test this theory. As it turns out, he was right.

Salk did postgraduate work in virology, and spent some elective time in the laboratory of his mentor, Thomas Francis. It was here that he and Francis developed the first influenza vaccine by incubating a strain of the virus in a chicken embryo, then rendering it inactive.

Paralyzing Polio

Salk started his residency in Francis' lab at Mount Sinai Hospital. Within a few years, he was eager to study infectious diseases in his own lab. He wouldn't have to wait long. A man named Harry Weaver contacted him about researching polio. Weaver was director of research at the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and was in a position to offer Salk his own lab and researchers. Soon, Salk started to get grants, which he used to build up his virology laboratory.

In 1947, Salk began working on a polio vaccine. First he had to sort out all 125 known strains of the virus. As he did, he noticed they all fell into one of three basic types. A successful vaccine would have to cover all three groups to give full protection from polio. Having figured this out, his next problem was making enough vaccine to experiment with. Luckily, in 1948, a group of scientists discovered that the polio virus would multiply just fine on scraps of non-nerve tissue from human embryos, meaning that a full-blown organism like a chicken embryo was not necessary. Thanks to this discovery, Salk could iterate much more quickly.

At the same time, another researcher named Albert Sabin was working on a live-virus vaccine to be taken orally. Sabin believed that only a live, weakened virus could make the human body produce antibodies, and believed that Salk was wasting his time trying to make an effective vaccine with dead strains.

The Polio Pioneers

In July 1952, Salk was ready to try out his killed-virus vaccine. His first patients were children who had already contracted polio and recovered. After vaccination, they all showed an increase in antibodies.

Then he tried the vaccine on himself, his wife, and his own children. When everyone in his family showed increased antibodies and no signs of illness, Salk knew it was time to share it with the world.

In 1953, Salk reported his results to the American Medical Association, and a massive trial was conducted the following year. One million children, known as the polio pioneers, were injected with Salk's vaccine, and the results were incredible, with 60-70% prevention. The US wasted no time rolling out mass inoculations for children.

Unfortunately, there was an incident at one of the labs producing the vaccine. Some of the lots contained a live virus, and this mistake generated 40,000 new polio cases from the 120,000 poorly-controlled vaccines. The labs adopted higher standards and resumed production, but the incident would have a lasting impact on the pharmaceutical world. The news must have been bittersweet for Albert Sabin, who was still working on his live-virus version. Sabin completed human trials of his oral vaccine in 1957, and it was approved in 1962.

Could You Patent the Sun?

Once his vaccine was proven effective, Salk instantly shot to rock star status, much to his dismay. All the attention took time and energy away from his research, and he regretted losing his privacy and anonymity, especially where his research was concerned. Salk received a load of honors for his vaccine, including four honorary degrees and Presidential Medal of Freedom.

In an interview with Edward R. Murrow, he was asked who owned the patent on the vaccine. Salk famously replied, "Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Though it's easy to believe that Salk had completely altruistic intentions and never thought to patent it himself, it has since been discovered that the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis' lawyers had inquired about it at some point, and were told that the vaccine wasn't novel enough to warrant a patent. Some would argue that the public had paid for it already through programs like the March of Dimes.

Giving Back: The Salk Institute

Salk was never in it for the money, and he never forgot where he came from. In 1963, he established the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, CA to provide a research space for scientists working toward the elimination of diseases like multiple sclerosis and cancer. The Salk Institute was the kind of place he could only dream of as a student.

Salk died of heart failure in 1995. Toward the end of his life, he had been working on vaccines for cancer, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS.

Jonas Salk had a huge impact on virology, on the United States, and on the longevity of thousands of baby boomers. The world could certainly use more scientists who follow his philosophy of helping humankind as a whole.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jonas Salk, Virologist And Vaccination Vanguard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the early 1950s, the only thing scarier than the threat of nuclear war was the annual return of polio - an easily-spread, incurable disease that causes nerve damage, paralysis, and sometimes death. At the first sign of an outbreak, public hot spots like theaters and swimming pools would close up immediately.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Dr. Jonas Salk first began testing his potential polio vaccine in 1953, he brought it home from his nearby lab at the University of Pittsburgh.

"I just hated injections," recalled his son Peter Salk, 76, and the oldest of three brothers. "So my father came home with polio vaccine and some syringes and needles that he sterilized on the kitchen stove, boiling them in water, and lined us kids up and then administered the vaccine."

Peter Salk, then 9, wasn't old enough to understand fully why he and his brothers were getting this injection. Yet he remembers that shot like no other.

"Somehow the needle must have missed a nerve, and I didn't feel it. And so that has fixed that moment in my mind," he said.

As the world awaits a vaccine for COVID-19, Salk recalled an era when polio terrorized the country every summer.

Kids were hit hardest. In the worst single year, 1952, nearly 60,000 children were infected. Many were paralyzed, and more than 3,000 died. Frightened parents kept their children away from swimming pools, movie theaters and other public places.

When Salk and his brothers were injected, it marked the beginning of the end of polio. But it was a protracted process. What followed was the largest human trial ever, with nearly 2 million American children taking part. Finally, on April 12, 1955, nearly two years after the Salk boys had received their shots, the vaccine was declared "safe, effective and potent."

"What happened in the country at that moment was remarkable. There was jubilation," Salk said. "There was such a sense of relief that this fear, which had been hanging over everyone's heads for years and years and years, was finally lifted."

It's one of the great vaccine success stories, and Jonas Salk became one of the most celebrated men in America.

Polio was effectively wiped out in the U.S. by the early 1960s. Since then, it's been steadily eliminated around the world. These days, only a small number of cases crop up annually, mostly in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

A word of warning
Peter Salk, who lives in La Jolla, Calif., is also a doctor and a part-time professor of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh, and he heads the Jonas Salk Legacy Foundation.

To stay safe, he continues to hang out at home with his wife, Ellen, even as government restrictions ease and shops and restaurants in the area begin to reopen.

Given the long family experience in this field, Peter Salk said he is optimistic about a COVID-19 vaccine. But he cautioned about racing ahead before one is fully tested.

"I congratulate the impulse on the part of the federal government right now to want to speed things up as much as possible," he said. "What concerns me is knowing that in the past there have been unexpected things that have taken place with vaccines that had not been foreseen."

His father, who died in 1995, worked on his vaccine for seven years before it was approved. His research was funded by charitable donations, and he didn't seek a patent.

When journalist Edward R. Murrow asked Jonas Salk who owned the patent, the doctor replied: "The people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Then, as now, the need to vaccinate was urgent. But there were delays, Peter Salk noted.

"The vaccine was introduced, but haltingly. It wasn't done the way my father would have liked to have seen - 'Let's just get this out and get it into every single child's arm,' " Salk said.

At one point, a government health official was called before a Senate committee and asked why it was taking so long. Peter Salk picked up a book and cited a passage about the episode:

"As to her failure to anticipate the need for adequate supplies of vaccine earlier than she did, she replied heatedly, 'I think no one could have foreseen the public demand.' "

Peter Salk said it took roughly a decade for the polio vaccine to be researched, tested and widely distributed to the American public. He said he hopes it will happen much faster this time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Among The 1st To Get A Polio Vaccine, Peter Salk Says Don't Rush A COVID-19 Shot

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Dr. Jonas Salk first began testing his potential polio vaccine in 1953, he brought it home from his nearby lab at the University of Pittsburgh. "I just hated injections," recalled his son Peter Salk, 76, and the oldest of three brothers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About Jonas Salk - Salk Institute for Biological Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jonas Edward Salk was born October 28, 1914 in New York City, the eldest of three sons to Russian-Jewish immigrants Daniel and Dora Salk. The first member of his family to attend college, he earned his medical degree from the New York University School of Medicine in 1939 and became a scientist physician at Mount Sinai Hospital.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Salk Institute Honors Legacy of founder Jonas Salk on his 106th birthday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wilton, Connecticut - William Olmstead, 13, says to build strong character, you need to step outside your comfort zone. So he did just that - quite literally.

Olmstead, a Boy Scout, loved camping until COVID-19 came along. So he thought, what better way to challenge himself than to pitch a tent behind his house and sleep there longer than any backyard camper ever has?

He slept in his tent every night for a year and a day.

"Stopping him from doing anything is a fool's errand," his dad, Bill Olmstead, said.

So Olmstead's parents went along with it. They let him give up his warm, cozy bed in exchange for howling coyotes and bitter cold, blizzards, sweltering heat - and worse. A hurricane swept through the family's property at one point, but Olmstead still slept in his tent.

"That night we also put the tent under the deck to protect from the wind," Bill Olmstead said.

Six trees fell down on their property that day.In Bill Olmstead's defense, the bulk of the storm had passed by nightfall and his son is a hurricane in his own right.

"If I start something, I have to finish it. And if I don't finish it, I would be so upset," the teenager said.

Parents often push their kids, but to achieve success the prod has to come from within.

Olmstead was determined to sleep outside a full year - and this week he made it. His next goal is to end world hunger. He doesn't know how yet, but you can bet he's sleeping on it tonight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13-year-old sleeps in backyard tent for a year and a day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wilton, Connecticut - William Olmstead, 13, says to build strong character, you need to step outside your comfort zone. So he did just that - quite literally. Olmstead, a Boy Scout, loved camping until COVID-19 came along.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MLA - Michals, Debra. "Harriet Tubman." National Women's History Museum. National Women's History Museum, 2015. Date accessed.

Chicago - Michals, Debra. "Harriet Tubman." National Women's History Museum. 2015. www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/harriet-tubman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Known as the "Moses of her people," Harriet Tubman was enslaved, escaped, and helped others gain their freedom as a "conductor" of the Underground Railroad. Discover more about her on womenshistory.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On the Road: Devoted son cooks up a plan to help his mom's dream come true | ON THE ROAD: When his mom was diagnosed with terminal cancer last year, Dustin Vitale was determined to make her final wish - a family trip to Egypt -... | By On the Road with Steve Hartman | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1.6M views, 37K likes, 45K loves, 4.9K comments, 26K shares, Facebook Watch Videos from On the Road with Steve Hartman: ON THE ROAD: When his mom was diagnosed with terminal cancer last year, Dustin...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School bus driver forms unexpected bond with 5-year-old girl

# data[].attributes.body
Who's encouraging who?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School cafeteria worker feeds the hungry well after lunch hour ends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Sweet Seventeen | In Kenmore, Wa., a young woman has been forced to deal with things no kid should ever have to face. 
  She has learned to lean on her family.. but... | By Eric Johnson KOMO | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
285K views, 5.5K likes, 4.7K loves, 929 comments, 3.3K shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Eric Johnson KOMO: In Kenmore, Wa., a young woman has been forced to deal with things no kid should ever have...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How College Student Takes Care of 5 Younger Siblings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On the Road: Rescue dog rescues her owner | ON THE ROAD: How can you repay someone who gave you a second chance at life? How about returning the favor. On the Road with Steve Hartman with the... | By On the Road with Steve Hartman | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
52 万 views, 7,530 likes, 8,688 loves, 689 comments, 7,823 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from On the Road with Steve Hartman: ON THE ROAD: How can you repay someone who gave you a second chance at...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amanda S. C. Gorman (born March 7, 1998) is an American poet and activist. Her work focuses on issues of oppression, feminism, race, and marginalization, as well as the African diaspora. Gorman was the first person to be named National Youth Poet Laureate. She published the poetry book The One for Whom Food Is Not Enough in 2015. In 2021, she delivered her poem " The Hill We Climb" at the inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden.

Her inauguration poem generated international acclaim, and shortly thereafter, two of her books achieved best-seller status, and she obtained a professional management contract. In February 2021, Gorman was highlighted in magazine's 100 Next list under the category of "Phenoms", with a profile written by Lin-Manuel Miranda. That same month, Gorman became the first poet to perform at the Super Bowl, when she delivered her poem "Chorus of the Captains" at Super Bowl LV.

Born in Los Angeles, California, Gorman was raised by her single mother, Joan Wicks, a 6th-grade English teacher in Watts, with her two siblings. Her twin sister, Gabrielle, is an activist and filmmaker. Gorman has said she grew up in an environment with limited television access. She has described her young self as a "weird child" who enjoyed reading and writing and was encouraged by her mother.

Gorman has an auditory processing disorder and is hypersensitive to sound. She also had a speech impediment during childhood. Gorman participated in speech therapy during her childhood and Elida Kocharian of The Harvard Crimson wrote in 2018, "Gorman doesn't view her speech impediment as a crutch-rather, she sees it as a gift and a strength." Gorman told The Harvard Gazette in 2018, "I always saw it as a strength because since I was experiencing these obstacles in terms of my auditory and vocal skills, I became really good at reading and writing. I realized that at a young age when I was reciting the Marianne Deborah Williamson quote that 'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate, our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure' to my mom." In 2021, Gorman told CBS This Morning co-host Anthony Mason that she used songs as a form of speech therapy, and explained, "My favorite thing to practice was the song 'Aaron Burr, Sir,' from because it is jam-packed with R's. And I said, 'if I can keep up with Leslie in this track, then I am on my way to being able to say this R in a poem."

Gorman attended New Roads, a private school in Santa Monica, for grades K-12. As a senior, she received a Milken Family Foundation college scholarship. She studied sociology at Harvard College, graduating in 2020 as a member of Phi Beta Kappa. In 2019, Gorman spent a semester studying in Madrid, Spain, supported by IES Abroad.

Beginnings and recognition (2014-2020)

Gorman's art and activism focus on issues of oppression, feminism, race, and marginalization, as well as the African diaspora. She has said she was inspired to become a youth delegate for the United Nations in 2013 after watching a speech by Pakistani Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai. Gorman was chosen as the first youth poet laureate of Los Angeles in 2014. In 2014 it was reported that Gorman was "editing the first draft of a novel the 16‑year‑old has been writing over the last two years." She published the poetry book The One for Whom Food Is Not Enough in 2015.

In 2016, Gorman founded the nonprofit organization One Pen One Page, a youth writing and leadership program. In 2017, she became the first author to be featured on XQ Institute's Book of the Month, a monthly giveaway to share inspiring Gen Z's favorite books. She wrote a tribute for black athletes for Nike and has a book deal with Viking Children's Books to write two children's picture books.

In 2017, Gorman became the first youth poet to open the literary season for the Library of Congress, and she has read her poetry on MTV. She wrote "In This Place: An American Lyric" for her September 2017 performance at the Library of Congress, which commemorated the inauguration of Tracy K. Smith as Poet Laureate of the United States. The Morgan Library and Museum acquired her poem "In This Place (An American Lyric)" and displayed it in 2018 near works by Elizabeth Bishop.

While at Harvard, Gorman became the first person to be named National Youth Poet Laureate in April 2017. She was chosen from five finalists. In 2017, Gorman won a $10,000 grant from media company OZY in the annual OZY Genius Awards through which 10 college students are given "the opportunity to pursue their outstanding ideas and envisioned innovations".

In 2017, Gorman said she intends to run for president in 2036, and she has subsequently often repeated this hope. On being selected as one of magazine's 2018 "College Women of the Year", she said: "Seeing the ways that I as a young black woman can inspire people is something I want to continue in politics. I don't want to just speak works; I want to turn them into realities and actions." After she read her poem "The Hill We Climb" at President Joe Biden's inauguration in 2021, Hillary Clinton tweeted her support for Gorman's 2036 aspiration.

In 2019, Gorman was chosen as one of magazine's "Young Futurists", an annual list of "the 25 best and brightest young African-Americans who excel in the fields of social justice and activism, arts and culture, enterprise and corporate innovation, science and technology, and green innovation". She expressed support for abortion rights and in a 2019 NowThis News video which included a pro-choice poem.

In May 2020, Gorman appeared in an episode of the web series Some Good News hosted by John Krasinski, where she had the opportunity to virtually meet Oprah Winfrey and issued a virtual commencement speech to those who could not attend commencements due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. In 2020, Gorman presented "Earthrise", a poem focused on the climate crisis.

Inauguration poem and acclaim (2021-present)

Gorman read her poem " The Hill We Climb" at the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, and is the youngest poet to read at a presidential inauguration in United States history. Jill Biden recommended her for the inauguration. After January 6, 2021, Gorman amended her poem's wording to address the storming of the United States Capitol. During the week before the inauguration, she told The Washington Post book critic Ron Charles, "My hope is that my poem will represent a moment of unity for our country" and "with my words, I'll be able to speak to a new chapter and era for our nation."

Before her performance, Gorman told CBS This Morning co-host Anthony Mason: "One of the preparations that I do always whenever I perform is I say a mantra to myself, which is 'I'm the daughter of black writers. We're descended from freedom fighters who broke through chains and changed the world. They call me.' And that is the way in which I prepare myself for the duty that needs to get done." Soon after Gorman's performance at the inauguration, her two upcoming books, the poetry collection The Hill We Climb and a project for youth, Change Sings: A Children's Anthem - both scheduled for release in September 2021 - were at the top of Amazon's bestseller list. A book version of the poem "The Hill We Climb" was published in March 2021, with a foreword by Oprah Winfrey, and debuted at No. 1 on several bestseller lists, including The New York Times adult fiction and . First printings of one million copies were announced for each of Gorman's three upcoming books.

In February 2021 the Dutch writer Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, winner of the 2020 International Booker Prize, who had been chosen to translate Gorman's poem, stepped down from the assignment following criticism that the publisher had chosen a white translator. As noted by the BBC, Rijnveld's decision has "heightened the debate in the Netherlands over the ethics of translation and underlined Gorman's original sentiments of the hills that 'all other black girls' must climb." In March 2021, it was reported that the Spanish publisher Univers after hiring writer Victor Obiols to translate Gorman's poem into Catalan had relieved him of the commission after his translation was delivered and were seeking a replacement translator; as Obiols stated: "They did not question my abilities, but they were looking for a different profile, which had to be a woman, young, activist and preferably black." The request was said to have originated with the US group Viking Books. Three translators - Kubra Gumusay, Hadija Haruna-Oelker and Uda Strätling - worked together on the poem's German edition.

IMG Models and its parent company WME signed Gorman for representation in fashion, beauty, and talent endorsements. She is represented in the publishing industry by Writers House and by the Gang, Tyre, Ramer, Brown and Passman law firm. Gorman was commissioned to compose an original poem to be recited at Super Bowl LV's pregame ceremony on February 7, 2021, as an introduction to the three honorary captains who would preside over the coin toss. The Washington Post reported that the honorary captains were essential workers "James Martin, a U.S. Marine veteran; Trimaine Davis, an educator; and Suzie Dorner, an ICU nurse manager", and that Gorman delivered the poem in their honor in a recorded video. In advance of presenting her new piece, titled "Chorus of the Captains", Gorman said: "Poetry at the Super Bowl is a feat for art and our country, because it means we're thinking imaginatively about human connection even when we feel siloed."

Gorman made the cover of magazine's February 2021 issue. In March 2021, Gorman said she was racially profiled by a security guard near her home, and tweeted afterwards, "He left, no apology. This is the reality of black girls: One day you're called an icon, the next day, a threat." She later tweeted, "In a sense, he was right. I Am a Threat: a threat to injustice, to inequality, to ignorance. Anyone who speaks the truth and walks with hope is an obvious and fatal danger to the powers that be. A threat and proud."

Gorman, who was photographed by Annie Leibovitz for the cover-story of the May edition of - the first poet ever to have been thus featured by the magazine - has said she has turned down $17 million in offers for endorsements that did not "speak to" her. In September 2021, it was announced that Gorman would become the first Estée Lauder "Global Changemaker", as a representative of the brand in ad campaigns and speaking events, in addition to work with the company's grantmaking program to promote literacy for girls and women. On September 13, 2021, she co-hosted the Met Gala, alongside actor Timothée Chalamet, singer Billie Eilish, and tennis player Naomi Osaka.

In the wake of the May 2022 Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Gorman published a short poem on Twitter and encouraged action to promote gun safety, as well as penning the poem, "Hymn for the Hurting." She continued to express her support for and abortion rights in a poem posted on Twitter on June 24, 2022, which includes the line, "We will not let Roe v. Wade slowly fade."

Gorman has spoken of her early attempts at writing being "very Anne of Green Gables", until she discovered the work of Toni Morrison in middle school: "I realized then that stories could actually be about people who look like me." Observer.com reported in 2019: "It was in high school that she eventually read the poetry of other black women such as Audre Lorde and Phillis Wheatley, and started writing poems that commented on social justice issues such as intersectional feminism and race." Taking a multi disciplined view to self-expression, Gorman has spoken of the connection between fashion and poetry; in 2019, magazine noted that Gorman drew inspiration "from icons such as Maya Angelou, the Duchess of Sussex, and Michelle Obama", saying: "Fashion brings a distinct visual aesthetic to language. When I'm performing onstage, I'm not just thinking about my clothing, but what my Wakanda Forever T-shirt and yellow skirt is saying about my identity as a poet."

Gorman is a Black Catholic, a member of St. Brigid Catholic Church, a Black Catholic parish in her hometown of Los Angeles.

The day after Biden's inauguration, she appeared on The Late Late Show with James Corden and said that Corden was "like [her] favorite human being ever created."

Michael Cirelli, executive director of Urban Word NYC, called her a "powerhouse" and has joked that her "bio goes out of date every two weeks."

In 2014, it was reported that Gorman "aspires to be a human rights advocate."

Audiobooks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amanda S. C. Gorman (born March 7, 1998) is an American poet and activist. Her work focuses on issues of oppression, feminism, race, and marginalization, as well as the African diaspora. Gorman was the first person to be named National Youth Poet Laureate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amanda Gorman and Michelle Obama in Conversation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The poet and former First Lady discuss poetry, activism and the pressures Black women face in the spotlight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH: Amanda Gorman reads inauguration poem, 'The Hill We Climb'

# data[].attributes.headline
Characteristics of an enthusiastic person

# data[].attributes.subject
Characteristics of an enthusiastic person

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever meet someone who you just love spending time with? When you get together you know you're going to have a great time? Perhaps, that's the effects of being in the presence of an individual whose enthusiastic. People are drawn to their sweet and charming disposition. And here are 15 wonderful assets they process which makes them stand out from the crowd.
1). An Upbeat Attitude ~ They are peppy and full of happiness and are a joy to be around. Their like a breath of fresh air. Their countenance radiates virtue and love dwelling within.

2), Their Smile ~ That smile which distinguish them, lights up the room.and changes the atmosphere. Their full of energy and excitement and is not ashamed to display it. You can always count on them to be a source of encouragement and inspiration.

3). They Like Themselves ~ They charge their self with faith filled proclamations. Those whom are enthusiastic are comfortable in their own skin. And never attempt to appease or be accepted by those within the "inner circle." In essence, regarding their life, they really care less of others negative opinions. And they are much harder on themselves than anyone.

4). Encourage and help others to believe in themselves. See the potential in others more than they see in their self. It brings them joy and satisfaction to build up one's self-esteem while empowering them to certify they are " A Champion" adorned with gifts, talents, skills and experiences which will enrich the world.

5). See things from a positive perspective ~ Refuse to dwell on the negative. And looks for the good among the worst conditions. Realize they can't change others but will set a positive example for all to follow. Identify difficult circumstances as opportunities for open doors and new exciting adventures. Their confident that something good will come out of it.

6). Not governed by public opinions and Naysayers ~ Aware of who they are, where they are going and how to get there. Those who try to cast gloom don't stand a chance against an enthusiastic person. These are they who aren't pessimistic, but rather neutralizes such by being self-assured of their identify. Realizes their strength and weaknesses and work on whatever changes need to be made to become a better person. Refuses to allow anyone to crush their spirit.

7). Performs their absolute best ~ With drive and determination, they plan, and apply organizational insight to fulfill their purpose in life. Are known to go beyond what is required to accomplish optimum results. Passionate about "Making A Difference"; in the world.

8). Take responsibility and never affix blame ~ Accept that in life, mistakes happen, but want let such define who they are. Are accountable for their actions and choices even when they realize they made an unwise decision and is willing to humbly accept the consequences of such. Very much aware that mistakes and rash decisions are opportunities to work harder, do it better and become wiser.

9). Handle constructive criticism with poise ~ Is receptive to well reasoned opinions. Use it as a learning tool for it's not perceived as oppositional but, is given from sincerity and concern for their well being.

10). Not afraid to take chances ~ Realizing if something is worth having, it's worth fighting for. Apply their creativity and ideas to go after their dreams while putting forth the best effort to achieve their goals. Committing their time and attention as is needed without being distracted by outside forces whose aim is to cause them to fail.

11). Failure is not an option ~ Keep trying until they succeed. Use another method or strategy to complete the task. Take a break to reorganize and rethink coming back with fresh ideas. Utilize failure as a stepping stone on their road to success.

12). Hold on to Hope ~ Anchored on the promises that something better is in store for them. Live each day with expectancy that something good is going to occur. Walk by faith and not by how the circumstances look like. Wake up looking for every day to be filled with meaning, purpose and joy. During times of hardships, will encourage themselves through unshakable faith.

14). Calls no attention to themselves ~ In their eyes, it's an; "Not about me attitude". Their in it to serve and help others succeed. It's about bringing joy and enlightenment and working as a Team and assures everyone receives credit for a job well done.

15). Sacrificial Offering ~ Don't mind taking out time to volunteer their time for a worthy cause. Initiate setting up programs within community to bring hope and restoration. Willing to go out their way to benefit the needs of others.

The next time you desire to experience happiness or better days, spend some time with someone filled with enthusiasm. Their energy is electrifying and will definitely add spice to your life!
God bless you, My Friends and Family! I hope you are inspired , encouraged and empowered to go forth in the spirit of excellence and "Make A Difference In The world." Thank you for your comments, likes and feedback for it is most encouraging. And I welcome you to Follow Me!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Attritbutes That Make Enthusiastic People Stand Out From The Crowd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever meet someone who you just love spending time with? When you get together you know you're going to have a great time? Perhaps, that's the effects of being in the presence of an individual whose enthusiastic. People are drawn to their sweet and charming disposition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A timeline of Dolly Parton’s philanthropy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahead of the star-studded tribute to Parton’s music and philanthropy, flip through the galley below for a deeper look at the “Jolene” singer and songwriter’s charitable history throughout the years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2019, Dolly Parton became the first country artist ever to be named the MusiCares Person of the Year. The honor came in recognition of the country icon's years of charity work and giving back -- and rightfully so -- but it's difficult not to think that the award was long overdue.

Parton's charity efforts are legendary, not just in her home state of Tennessee -- where she's worked for years to improve literacy and promote education via programs such as her Imagination Library -- but worldwide. Over the years, she has supported the United Way and the Save the Music Foundation; donated items to charity; and participated in the Make-a-Wish program.

Additionally, Parton has also dedicated money, time and support toward animal rights: In 2003, for instance, she received the Partnership Award from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in connection with Dollywood's American Eagle Foundation bald eagle sanctuary. She's also worked with HIV/AIDS charities -- for example, she contributed the tune "You Gotta Be My Baby" to the benefit album Red Hot + Country -- and health-related causes.

"I am impressed that Dolly doesn't do anything that doesn't grow to have a widespread impact," Parton's longtime friend and musical foil Kenny Rogers told in 2015. "It may start locally, but because of her focus and determination, whatever it may be grows to have influence in a much larger way."

Although it's tough to narrow down Parton's most impressive charity achievements, these are five of the most important ones:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dolly Parton's Charity Work: Imagination Library, the Dollywood Foundation + More Important Efforts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2019, Dolly Parton became the first country artist ever to be named the MusiCares Person of the Year. The honor came in recognition of the country icon's years of charity work and giving back -- and rightfully so -- but it's difficult not to think that the award was long overdue.

# data[].attributes.body
1 - On the Road episode
2 - On the Road Kahoot
3 - History of Uncle Sam video
4 - Uncle Sam Kahoot

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn – any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!

# data[].attributes.body
Uncle Sam - Henry
Veterans - Solonia interview Dad

# data[].attributes.body
On the Road episode
(Maud Duncan - Solonia)
Sophia Sawyer - Henry
Margarita Solorzano - Mrs. Judy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: Since March, we've sometimes used the Profiles pages to share the efforts of Northwest Arkansas heroes who worked under exhausting and dangerous conditions to help their fellow community members during the pandemic. These are two more we wanted you to meet.

"The United States used their homeland for nuclear test-bombing, then denied them Medicaid. Now, their way of life in the U.S. heartland has left them prime prey for the pandemic."

So reads the summary of a Politico article from mid-December, just one of several national news stories focusing attention on the outsized rate of infection for the 10,000-plus Marshallese who live in Northwest Arkansas. So devastating was the spread of sickness and death among our Marshallese neighbors that the CDC dispatched a team of researchers to the region this summer. Its findings are staggering: The Marshallese, reports Politico, are 71 times more likely to be infected by covid-19 than the white population, 96 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 65 times more likely to die. Entire families are being decimated by the disease, and the community has experienced immeasurable loss since March.

The lack of access to health care has only served to exacerbate the situation, as has the fact that many Marshallese are essential workers, employed in factory and food production jobs that make social distancing difficult. The community is close-knit, and many live in multigenerational households that make the spread of covid-19 frighteningly easy.

Nowhere is the closeness of this community better illustrated than in the heroic work of two of its members during the course of the pandemic. Melisa Laelan, founder and executive director of the Arkansas Coalition of Marshallese (ACOM), and Albious Latior, a community organizer now working as Fayetteville's Good Shepherd Lutheran Church's Marshallese covid-19 outreach coordinator, have worked tirelessly for 10 months to do whatever they can to support those hardest hit.

"If you're Marshallese, you know you cannot sleep because people come to your house 24/7 -- come and knock at your door and seek help, and until you get them help, they won't leave you alone," says Latior with a chuckle. "Our community is a close-knit community, so everybody knows each other. If they don't know you, they know someone else who knows you."

Both Latior and Laelan left their birthplace of the Marshall Islands in their youth. Latior's family left when he was in third grade, and Laelan joined the United States Army immediately following high school graduation. Those born on the Marshall Islands have the ability to visit, work and live in the United States legally, as granted by the Compact of Free Association (COFA). But that freedom was the result of a much higher cost: From 1946 to 1958, the United States used the Marshall Islands as a testing ground, ultimately detonating 67 nuclear explosions across the island system, rendering much of it uninhabitable. The damage has spanned decades: Crops failed, cancer rates skyrocketed, and birth defects multiplied. The nuclear waste left on the islands is becoming more of a threat because of global climate change. Food assistance from the United States -- required because the nuclear testing made growing crops and fishing dangerous -- came in the form of processed foods, resulting in a host of health complications for the Marshallese people. When COFA was put in place in the early 1990s, the Marshallese people were guaranteed access to Medicaid -- until the 1996 U.S. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act stripped them of those benefits.

Many of these factors have contributed to the devastation wrought by covid-19 on the community.

Mobilizing community

Laelan first came to Springdale to visit family while she was an Army staff sergeant. When she retired from the service, she decided she liked the area well enough to move here. She took a job with the Washington Country Juvenile Detention Center, where she observed that a lack of Marshallese interpreters was detrimental for Marshallese families navigating the justice system. So she gained certification as a Marshallese language court interpreter, the first in the nation. In 2011, she started ACOM.

"I had a feeling that we were going to get hit harshly by the pandemic early on, simply because of what we have known all along about the health condition of the community," says Laelan. "The history of diabetes, cancers and more illnesses were precursors for the pandemic. I remember seeing a video on Facebook of a mother from another state, in the Washington [state] area, sharing her story that she couldn't breathe, and she just lost a nephew -- a perfectly healthy young man (I think he was 16). There was a gofundme website for the funeral, and I immediately donated. The story touched me, and still it seems too far away from Arkansas."

Laelan's covid-19 fears were realized in April when a young Marshallese man died of the disease. The following week, the losses became personal as Laelan learned a family member had died.

"I think I was in frantic mode," she says. "The family was on lock-down; no one was allowed to go outside. At the same time, I had relatives who moved in with me because they were losing their apartment due to nonpayment. There was increasing social messaging about social distancing and how to keep yourself safe, and I think that's when the majority of our community went into panic mode."

Laelan's experience in organizing and her contacts through ACOM allowed her to mobilize help quickly.

"ACOM was already set to provide rent assistance through a grant from Fargo Bank," she says. "Later on, we received assistance from the city of Springdale to provide more rental assistance. Through fundraising and grants, we have assisted over 300 households with rents and bills, and we are currently processing more. We have started a food pantry -- it is a new territory for us, but we will do whatever we need to do to meet the needs of the community."

ACOM hired a nurse who assists in weekly covid-19 education sessions and translates medical information into the Marshallese language, Laelan says. ACOM staff has also helped countless Marshallese enroll in the Affordable Care Act.

And in an election year like no other, Laelan and other volunteers have worked tirelessly to register as many eligible Marshallese community members as possible to vote.

Moving forward

Albious Latior was just a child when he was thrust into the school system of a country he had never even visited.

"I was really excited, because we all the time watched the American movies, and we were excited about moving to America," says Latior. "When I came to Arkansas, I was like, 'Ah, this is different than the America that I see on television.' That was a big city, but this is the countryside. Everything was different -- the weather, the food, the people, the language."

By the time he was in high school, however, he had acclimated enough to be an active member in the Marshallese community. Latior has worked in the field of Marshallese outreach for the Springdale Public Schools and The Jones Center, among others. At the beginning of the pandemic, he says, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Fayetteville reached out to offer him a position as an outreach coordinator for its efforts to help the Marshallese community. Latior's long-term activism and advocacy on behalf of the Marshallese community has made him a trusted voice, and, like Laelan -- pre covid-19 -- he has helped care for a sick parent in their last year of life, giving him unique insight and experience that he's called upon while helping out in the pandemic.

"There are lot of struggles I have witnessed since the pandemic hit our community," says Latior. "I would say the majority of the community members work at one of the poultry plants here in Northwest Arkansas, and the majority of them were struggling. There are many reasons why they were struggling. Most of the family were evicted, their car had been repossessed, [they were] without food. The reason why is that most of the family members in a household ... did not get paid while they were in quarantine, or their paycheck was delayed for two to three weeks. Because the companies did not take care of their workers, they were struggling and needed help with rent, food, car payments, medication for their elders and much more."

Latior has done whatever he could to help: He's sewn masks, organized food drives, raised funds for medical bills and registered his community to vote.

"Most of [my community members] are my former teachers, colleagues or friends," he says. "Even strangers step in and help me help my community with their need. During the pandemic, I went on Facebook and created 'Adopt a Marshallese Poultry Worker,' where anyone can sponsor a family. Lots of people came in to help with this. Lots of churches also stepped in to help the community."

Despite their hard work, both Laelan and Latior say there's more to be done.

"Our community is still recovering from the pandemic," notes Latior. "A lot of them are still going through this, because some of them are in quarantine again. This might be their fourth time of quarantine, without a paycheck. A lot of families are still needing help. To sponsor a family or get involved would be a greatly appreciated."

There is one bright spot that might mean 2021 will be a healthier one for the Marshallese community: This month, through the efforts of lawmakers like Hawaii's Sen. Mazie Hirono, Congress finally restored their access to Medicaid.

"That means we have a better chance of living longer," says Laelan, who, through ACOM, has advocated for the restoration for nearly a decade. She proudly notes that Rep. Steve Womack, with whom she's met multiple times to talk about the subject, was the first Republican to sign on to the latest covid-19 relief legislation that included restoring Medicaid benefits for the Marshallese. "The latest legislation will close the gap that has existed over 25 years. The health inequity has cost so many lives, and these are people we know dearly, so the change is very personal to me.

"I can't help but think of how resilient this community has been. There are things that we still need to consider, like the trust between the community and providers. We had so many people who were hesitant about receiving health care. Building trust is what I worry about the most moving forward. Maybe we have arrived at this crucial moment too late; however, I know greater things are to take place. I hope for a healthier community and healthier Arkansas as a whole."

How to Help
Arkansas Coalition of Marshallese
(479) 365-6625

arkansasmarshallese.org
Sponsor a Marshallese Family
https://www.facebook.com/albious25
Good Shepherd Lutheran Church
(479) 521-2113

goodshepherdnwa.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marshallese heroes: Melisa Laelan, Albious Latior aid community

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's Note: Since March, we've sometimes used the Profiles pages to share the efforts of Northwest Arkansas heroes who worked under exhausting and dangerous conditions to help their fellow community members during the pandemic. These are two more we wanted you to meet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kahoot for Albious Latior and Phoebe Leininger

# data[].attributes.subject
Kahoot for Albious Latior and Phoebe Leininger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join a game of kahoot here. Kahoot! is a free game-based learning platform that makes it fun to learn - any subject, in any language, on any device, for all ages!