Interdisciplinarity in evolutionary science… and video game design.

This post is written by UI faculty Barrie Robison

One year ago, my colleague Terry Soule and I embarked on a somewhat crazy idea – we wanted to make a video game built upon the principles of evolutionary biology. The two of us had dabbled in this area before, and reasoned that the combination of biology and computer science would naturally result in a cool evolutionary video game. Our early results were comically inadequate (Figure 1A).

Figure 1. Procedurally generated creatures using a randomly mutating digital genome. A) The comically inadequate results of a computer scientist and a biologist. Their genomes determine their shape and color. B) Incorporating artists on the team can produce creatures that are fully animated and modeled in 3D. Their genomes affect most aspects of their morphology and coloration. These are early prototypes of creatures for this summer’s game.

Our team was very clearly missing some key members. This is when we began to grasp the extent of the inherent interdisciplinarity in video game design – an enterprise requiring a startlingly broad swathe of University Departments. One needs programmers, to be sure, but a compelling game requires art and design (contrast Figure1A with 1B), story and characters, business and marketing, music and sound, and no small amount of evangelism on social media.

Check out Scott Manley’s playthrough of our game here:

If we want to make an evolutionary game – add a biologist or two to the mix.

Last May, having learned from our early experiences, we established Polymorphic Games and began by recruiting such a team of undergraduates. Their task was simple (ish): Create an evolutionary version of the classic arcade game Space Invaders. We hoped they could get that done in 12 weeks, but were prepared for failure. After all, Terry and I had been collaborating on this project for 18 months and our results had been less than compelling. The team finished what we asked … in two weeks. We had learned a very important lesson: the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration transcend scientific research.

Over the course of the rest of the summer, the students of Polymorphic Games took that simple evolutionary version of Space Invaders and turned it into something unique. And as they did it we watched them learn the tools of interdisciplinary collaboration – communication, respect, an understanding of roles, elements of leadership, and clarity of the shared vision. It was an amazing experience that resulted in “Darwin’s Demons”, named after the metaphorical Darwinian Demon – an organism that can evolve without constraint.

Darwin’s Demons is based on classic arcade games in which the player has to defeat waves of opponents. The evolutionary component was included by giving each opponent a digital genome that controls its appearance, traits, and behavior. After a wave in the game each opponent is assigned a fitness based on how well it performed against the player. Then each wave is treated as a generation in a generational evolutionary algorithm.

The player controls a space ship, and must destroy all of the opponents in each generation. The player has a limited number of lives and loses one each time either the ship is hit by an opponent’s projectile, an opponent reaches the bottom of the screen, or the ship is hit by an opponent (some ships are immune to hits from the side, allowing them to move into and destroy, opponents that move too far down the screen).

A concise (and much more visual) description of the science behind Darwin’s Demons is portrayed in our “science trailer” for the game.

Once Darwin’s Demons was complete, a key question was whether evolution was serving its design purpose. Was it making the game harder? Was it making the game more compelling? In a recent conference paper at EvoStar, we tested these hypotheses. We concluded that incorporating evolution caused the game to get progressively more difficult. In fact, this result led us to coin our tag-line: Evolution Always Wins. Changing the fitness function also led to different evolutionary trajectories, as did different player decisions regarding ships, armaments, and defensive systems.

Perhaps the most interesting result, however, occurred during one of our outreach activities. Prior to release, we hosted a high score competition at a University of Idaho video game event called Vandal Overnight. Our grand prize was that we would let the winner design a new ship for the game. Many players participated in the contest, and most fared poorly – they were only able to play the game for 4 to 5 minutes. A few players, though, were able to play continuously for more than 30 minutes. Were they more skilled? No. They were exploiting the evolutionary model. They were destroying the most aggressive and accurate aliens first, and letting the dumbest aliens persist for a long time in each generation. The result? They DOMESTICATED the aliens, turning them into metaphorical space cows that never fired projectiles and hovered stupidly in the upper corner of the screen.

As educators in evolutionary biology, this outcome was truly wonderful. Exploiting the evolutionary model implies understanding of the evolutionary model. As game designers, this result was alarming. We reasoned that “Space Cows – the video game” would not be well received by discerning gamers. We had to modify our fitness functions prior to game release to mitigate this strategy.

We continued to polish our game after the summer with a much smaller team, and commercially released Darwin’s Demons the day after Darwin Day. After three months, we’ve sold over 600 copies and added to over 1200 “wishlists” on Steam:

The sales aren’t bad for the first release for an indie game studio. But sales aren’t the point. I indulge in a loose comparison between sales of a game and citations of a published paper, I couldn’t be more proud of a work produced by a team of undergraduates.

Of course, one of our clearest indicators that Polymorphic Games is on the right track is the degree to which we are irritating pseudoscientists:

Darwinian Theory Proved by Video Game? Robert J. Marks Begs to Differ

Their irritation appears to stem from the fact that the aliens in Darwin’s Demons did not evolve to become sentient. We have excoriated our team of undergraduates for failing to create SkyNet. This summer for sure!

A new team of undergraduates have just begun “Project Hastur”, our new evolutionary game. The team consists of three programmers, two biologists, a musician, three artists, an evangelist, an entrepreneur, a creative writer, and a video production expert. I conclude that our ability to build and facilitate this interdisciplinary team was no accident. It was a direct result of BEACON’s unique culture – a culture that values a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.

With this new game, we hope to further push the integration of evolutionary principles with game-play. Project Hastur takes the struggle to the ground, where both the player and the environment will drive the evolution of the game opponents. Polymorphic Games will have an exhibitor’s booth at Evolution 2017 in Portland. If you have ideas about how to use evolutionary games for education and outreach, or if you just want to check out our games, please drop by.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work, Education, Member Announcements | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Interdisciplinarity in evolutionary science… and video game design.

Amoeba hugs are often deadly, and sometimes they set your career

This post is written by NCAT faculty Misty Thomas

My passion for Microbiology first started when I was in my undergraduate microbiology class at the Collège Universitaire de St. Boniface, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. I’m sure it was a cold day, as it almost always is in Winnipeg, but we were feeding amoebas small planktonic crustaceans called daphnia under the microscope. I watched the amoebas’ pseudopods (blobby arms) try to grab the daphnia to eat it three times, the daphnia kept teasing the amoeba until finally, on the fourth try, the daphnia met its death. After being engulfed, the amoebas’ digestive enzymes (internal fork and knife) came out and obliterated the daphnia. If you want a view of what I saw, here is a YouTube video of an amoeba eating two paramecia (, let me know what you think! What I learned from this moment on was that I was destined for a life in Microbiology. When I first started my undergraduate career, my plan was to be a high school chemistry and physics teacher, but after becoming more interested in Microbiology (and reading the Hot Zone), I ended up double majoring in Microbiology and Biochemistry. Then, in my second year, I went to a seminar which discussed alternative careers to medicine (because that apparently is where all the other science majors want to go) and I was then convinced I was going to graduate school.

With not a minute of real research experience, I originally had a hard time finding an advisor for grad school, and was told directly that I didn’t have what it took to be successful in a PhD program. I persisted and found an advisor and started graduate school directly after undergrad in the department of Microbiology at the University of Manitoba (also in Winterpeg). Here my advisor Dr. Brian Mark introduced me to research through studying proteins involved in antibiotic resistance, a perfect combo for a micro/biochem major. The goal of my PhD work was to study proteins involved in making the bacterial cells wall (a hard case-like structure around the cell that gives it strength and protection) and find ways to stop them and as a result kill the bacteria. Since humans don’t have cell walls we can design drugs that target the bacteria without causing harm to us, this is knowns as selective toxicity. Throughout this work I studied two proteins, one that helped to build the cell wall called NagZ and a DNA binding protein called AmpR that regulated the bacterial penicillin resistance gene ampC. Our work used a technique called protein crystallography which is a way to take a snapshot of the three-dimensional position of every atom in a protein so that you can get an accurate picture of it, as you cannot look at them under a microscope since protein are so small (although, this may not be entirely true as much nowadays). We believe that if you can see what a protein looks like, you can better understand what it does (its function), so that you can then design drugs specifically to stop the protein from doing what it is supposed to do (like making the cell wall (NagZ) or turning on antibiotic resistance (AmpR)) and then you will have an easier time killing the infectious bacteria, this is called structure based drug design. Despite my lack of experience going in, I had a successful graduate career, I won 2nd place at my first poster competition at an international conference (ACA 2007, Picture 1D), in my third year submitted a PhD fellowship grant that was rated number 1 in the province and I published 4 papers on my PhD work.

A) Self-portrait B) Participating in the Marbles Museum Family Science Fair outreach day C) Teaching about cloning in the NIEHS-Scholars Connect Program D) Winning 2nd place for my poster at the ACA 2007 D,E) My students (Telah Wingate (D) and Perice Manns (E) at their poster session presenting their work on cloning and expression of the CusS protein variants at the NCAT Undergraduate Research Symposium (Perice, won 3rd place for her poster)

I then moved to Durham NC for my Post-Doc at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (I can talk about this another time), and after 4 years there, found my calling, doing what I wanted to do in the first place…teaching. I was lucky to have a mentor that let me explore teaching opportunities while a Post-doc (Picture B and C). These experiences then led me to taking a position at NCA&T as a lecturer in the department of Biology, where I have been for the last 3 years. During my time at A&T I have been able to thoroughly develop my skills as an instructor teaching General Microbiology (I don’t get to let them feed amoebas but I at least show them the video) and Molecular Biology. Now, what I have been really passionate about, is the work I have done over the last 2 years incorporating my research interests into the courses that I teach. As a lecturer, I have had to adapt the types of projects that I can take on, in addition to becoming creative in searching for research funding, which is why course teaching supplies has been a great asset to me in progressing my work forward. In addition, when students like your classes you can attract high caliber students that belong to programs that come along with research supply money as well. More recently, my research endeavors have been accelerated this past year all thanks to a collaboration that I have been able to develop with Dr. Joseph Graves at the Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering here at NCAT. Dr. Graves uses experimental evolution and whole-genome sequencing to understand how different bacteria become resistant to heavy metals which normally kill them. Dr. Graves has been studying silver resistance in E. coli, as it was thought that silver is too potent of an antibacterial agent for them to develop resistance to. They then found that they could evolve bacteria to become resistant to 10x the normal toxic levels of silver in only a matter of 9 days! Now in order for bacteria to change what they can do (be resistant) they have to in some way change their DNA, so he sequenced the entire genome (DNA) of his newly resistant E. coli and found changes in three main genes, rpoB which is the RNA polymerase B subunit, involved in transcription (conversion of DNA into RNA), ompR, which helps make protein pumps that let things into the cell and CusS, a protein that senses silver and helps make other proteins that can remove silver from the cell. As a microbiologist/protein biochemist (thanks undergrad!) I was very interested in this project, specifically looking at the CusS protein. I wanted to understand how a single change in this protein could result in a bacterium that was resistant to silver. Therefore, I took this problem into my Molecular Biology class at NCAT where 12 groups designed different version of the protein to be used for protein crystallography and for biochemical analysis to see how the function of this protein changes between the normal one and the resistant one. Incorporation of authentic research experiences into the undergraduate classroom has been one of my major goals as an instructor so that all of my students will have the opportunity to work on a real research project before graduation (unlike me). During the class I had 8 groups successfully clone proteins and 2 groups express soluble protein. After the semester was over 4 students joined my lab to continue their class projects working on CusS (Picture 1E and F). This system of training my students in the classroom has enabled me to start up a small undergraduate run research program in the Department of Biology, that focuses on mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance and right now we are working hard to continue to get protein suitable for protein crystallography and we hope that this information will provide some insight into the actual mechanism of silver resistance in E. coli and to help us understand the ways in which we can potentially counteract this in the future.

When I look back on things now, I am excited about the direction that my career has taken me, and believe that every bump in the road has taken me right to where I am supposed to be. I started out wanting to be a teacher and my education has added a passion for research and now my current career allows me the freedom to take my love for education and my love for research and put them together in a way to excite me and all of my students that I teach every day.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work, Education | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Amoeba hugs are often deadly, and sometimes they set your career

On Microbial Individuality

This post is written by UI postdoc Jessica Lee

Selfie with scanners

I’m writing this blog post in hopes of convincing you to see every microbial cell as a unique individual. It’s a big ask, because microbes are numerous, and even card-carrying microbe lovers have a tendency to think of them as populations rather than as single cells. I’ve been guilty of the same thing; it’s only since I started working as a postdoc in the Marx Lab at UI that I’ve started to appreciate microbial individuality. And doing so has also forced me out of my comfort zone and into using tools to study microbes in unusual ways—an experience that I’m thrilled to share with you.

Much of microbiology has been built on the assumption that if two bacterial cells have the same genes and live in the same environment, they’ll behave in the same way. This assumption stems partly from necessity: it’s hard to study a single cell, so for most of the history of bacteriology, we’ve studied microbes by growing billions of genetically identical (“clonal”) cells in flasks and quantifying their bulk properties– for instance, measuring how fast the mass of the population doubles, rather than watching individual cells divide. We’ve long known that this is an oversimplification, but it’s a very effective oversimplification, one that has often allowed us to make predictions with stunning accuracy.

Except… sometimes even a clonal population of bacteria contains some cells insist on doing their own thing. One well-known example of such “phenotypic heterogeneity” is microbial persistence in the face of antibiotic-induced death. When a sensitive population of bacteria is treated with bacteriocidal antibiotics, most of them die at a rate that is so predictable it can be used to model precisely how much drug and how much exposure time are necessary to eliminate the population. But amid all the antibiotic carnage, we often find a small minority of cells that, nevertheless, persist.

The researchers who first examined this phenomenon by observing individual cells in action found that persister-type cells die slowly because they were previously growing slowly: they just happen to be a minority sub-population that hasn’t been actively reproducing. In general, that’s not a great strategy for a bacterium, because the whole point of being a bacterium is to make more bacteria. But it does turn out to be a good strategy if a pulse of antibiotics suddenly shows up, because antibiotics are more harmful to growing cells, so non-growing cells are able to withstand exposure longer. The most remarkable thing is that persistence is, ironically, transient—a cell can pop in and out of the persistent state, and doesn’t give its offspring any special ability to withstand antibiotics. (This makes it fundamentally different from the genetic antibiotic resistance that is a growing problem in hospitals today.) We even have evidence that this phenotypic diversity can be a useful evolutionary strategy, allowing the microbial population to “hedge its bets” by keeping a few non-growing cells on hand even while most are reproducing normally, ensuring that there will be a some survivalists ready to hunker down and wait it out a pulse of antibiotics should strike.

What does all of this have to do with my own research? Phenotypic heterogeneity seems to play a role in the way bacteria deal with a variety of different stresses, and in the Marx Lab, we study a very specific stressor: formaldehyde. Our model organism, Methylobacterium extorquens, is able to eat methanol, but when it does it produces formaldehyde as a metabolic intermediate. And somehow it manages the constant presence of that toxin quite well. We’ve recently observed some examples of phenotypic heterogeneity in M. extorquens populations, both when dealing with formaldehyde in its environment and when simply initiating methanol growth, and we’re curious to find out whether heterogeneity might be a survival strategy, or at least provide a clue about the mechanisms that M. extorquens uses to manage formaldehyde stress.

Colony growth trajectories. Each line represents an individual bacterial colony and its increase in size over time. Red lines and blue lines are two different genotypes; even within the blue genotype, there is marked variability in the amount of time it takes a colony to start growing (less so in the red genotype).

There are a few ways to observe differences among individual bacterial cells, many of them involving very fancy equipment, but one of my favorite methods is one of the simplest: looking at bacterial colonies on petri dishes. Of course, a colony is a dense mass of millions of cells, but each colony began as a single cell, so if you watch a lot of colonies, you can learn something about the variation in the single cells that started those colonies. For instance, we’ve found that if we stress cells with formaldehyde and then plate them out onto a formaldehyde-free petri dish to recover, some pop up right away and others take a long time to start growing. The distribution of colony arisal times may therefore give us some information about the growth state of the bacteria when they were stressed, or the nature of the cellular damage from the formaldehyde.

Timecourse of images of colonies developing on a culture plate over several days.

What’s more, you can observe an awful lot of colonies as they grow if you place your petri dishes on a flatbed photo scanner and scan them every hour! For real—I’m talking about the kind of scanner you can buy at your local office supply store. I’ve fallen in love with this method not only because it generates really cool data, but also because building it has been uncommonly fun. There doesn’t yet exist a company (that I’m aware of) that sells petri-dish scanners, though there are other labs who have built these systems and happily offer guidance. I’m a biologist who started in on this project all geared up for pipetting and plating and culturing, certainly not expecting that I’d find myself setting up a custom scanner array—routing cables galore through our lab ceiling, troubleshooting power supply issues, calibrating temperature probes, and writing code for image analysis. It has been a fantastic growing experience not only for my bacteria but for me as well. I’ve also been amazed at the enthusiasm and generosity of friends and strangers—biologists and non—who have offered their help. I’m hoping that this project will not only further our understanding of microbial biology in a new direction, but continue pushing me in a new direction too.

Stressed-out bacteria form colonies at different times; the ones that recover fastest end up being the biggest.

Balaban, N.Q., Merrin, J., Chait, R., Kowalik, L., and Leibler, S. (2004). Bacterial persistence as a phenotypic switch. Science 305, 1622–1625.

Ackermann, M. (2015). A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat Rev Micro 13, 497–508.

Levin-Reisman, I., Fridman, O., and Balaban, N.Q. (2014). ScanLag: High-throughput Quantification of Colony Growth and Lag Time. J Vis Exp.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , | Comments Off on On Microbial Individuality

The evolution of code is like the evolution of DNA nanotechnology

This post is written by UI faculty Peter Allen

I’m Peter Allen, a professor of Chemistry at the University of Idaho. I use DNA nanotechnology to build tiny things like autonomous nanomachines. DNA is more than genes and heredity. When I tell people that I work with DNA, they often ask me what species I got my DNA from. I didn’t get my DNA from any living creature. I invented the sequence. I synthesized the molecule. It doesn’t correspond to a gene or to heredity or to biology at all. The DNA I made is just a chemical. It has interesting chemical properties like no other molecule.

As a chemical, DNA has rules that I can understand. With a few exceptions, DNA has four components that bind together in a specific pattern: adenosine (A) binds to thymidine (T); guanine (G) binds to cytosine (C). Synthetic DNA can be made that has any sequence of these components. When DNA is synthesized, it only has half of the double helix. A piece of DNA can be made with a sequence like AATGC. That piece of DNA wants to bind to another piece of DNA with the reverse-complement sequence, GCATT. When they bind together, they make the spiral we’re all familiar with.

With that simple rule set, people have built some amazing and complex things. People have folded DNA into 2D and 3D shapes. People have used DNA to manipulate light. Remarkable reactions including catalysts and amplifiers have been built using these base pairing rules. I am particularly inspired by the work of Yin et al. I adapted the Yin designs to make a DNA nanomachine that walked around on microscopic particles. As they walked, they created a signal I could see with my eyes.

This technological field is evolving like Linux does: through the sharing of code. I think that’s weird. DNA is the physical embodiment of biological evolution, but this synthetic DNA is evolving in our brains and computers. Building a structure by hand is too hard, so software is used to design the DNA interactions that will create a structure. That software is often open source. That software also evolves in the same way that Linux distributions evolve.

DNA nanotechnology is a strange mix of literal evolution and digital/social evolution. The open source software used to create DNA origami (like CADnano) presumably will evolve like Linux. If you look at the Linux timeline, it looks like a phylogenetic tree. This is more than a passing resemblance: Linux has almost literally evolved. Linux is an open source operating system. Anyone can change the code. Programmers make changes in their personal copy. That’s like a mutation. If those changes are good, they might be adopted by the official community or added to the “distribution” (a shared package of official code). That’s selection and reproduction. Sometimes, a change is very radical. The community splits and creates a second distribution entirely which then evolves separately. That’s speciation. This process of gradual change with occasional splits in the lineage (and occasional extinctions) is the same kind of process that creates phylogenetic trees in nature.

DNA nanotechnology software evolution will depend on the kinds of rules we discover. If we can inform this software with new data, maybe we can help this software do more. DNA, by itself, can make some interesting structures aside from the double helix. For instance, DNA can make a folded “quadruplex” structure if it has enough G’s in the sequence. But what about DNA when it is mixed with other things like proteins?

Aptamers are DNA that has evolved to bind a target molecule like a protein. By repeatedly amplifying and collecting DNA that binds to some target molecule (and removing non-binding DNA), one can select strong binders. Aptamers are like synthetic antibodies. Aptamers can be used for all kinds of things. If a scientist or physician needs to determine if a specific biomolecule is present, it can be detected with an aptamer. This can be especially powerful when combined with DNA nanotechnology. Some enterprising folks even took aptamer binding and used it to create a signal that could be amplified using DNA circuits.

How will DNA design software evolve to incorporate aptamer binding? I suspect that there are patterns in aptamer sequences. I suspect that there are rules for what kinds of sequences aptamers come from. One of the projects we are working on in the Allen lab is to get deep sequence information from aptamer selections. Maybe with that data in hand, we can start to tease out some new rules and artificial selection and evolution can inform digital evolution.

Posted in BEACON Researchers at Work | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The evolution of code is like the evolution of DNA nanotechnology

National Alliance for Broader Impacts Guiding Principles

The National Alliance for Broader Impacts has recently put out a “Guiding Principles and Questions for National Science Foundation Proposals” informational PDF.

It provides great info if you’re thinking of broader impacts for a NSF proposal as well as if you’re thinking about broader impacts for any other purpose!

There is also a push for NSF review panels to use the NABI handout as a guideline when reviewing grants, so it’s worth checking out!




Posted in Member Announcements | Tagged | Comments Off on National Alliance for Broader Impacts Guiding Principles

Kay Holekamp receives the MSU Graduate School Outstanding Faculty Mentor Award

Congratulations to Kay Holekamp for being the inaugural recipient of the MSU Graduate School Outstanding Faculty Mentor Award!

See the entire letter to Kay from Judith Stoddart, Interim Dean and Associate Provost for Graduate Education, below highlighting the admirable qualities that won Kay the award.

The selection committee (which included a college associate dean, a graduate program director, associate and assistant deans from the Graduate School, and a graduate student) was impressed by the nominating letter written by 5 of your doctoral students and a recent PhD detailing the professional and personal impact you have had on their lives.  They talked about the ways that you sustain a supportive and collaborative atmosphere within your lab from the time prospective students e-mail you through their post-graduate work, about your “thoughtful and exhaustive feedback” on professional and personal topics, and about how you have made connections that have enabled them to be joint authors with scientists at other institutions.  They remarked on the ways that you model mentoring for them and then encourage them to practice it by including undergraduates in all stages of their research.  They also indicated that your mentorship extends beyond the academic community, including, e.g.,  children’s book authors who visited your field site in Kenya last year.

Your chair noted the fact that you mentor not only your own students, but those of others.  You have done this informally as well as in formal roles such as graduate director of ZOL/IBIO and EEBB.  You also developed and continue to offer the Integrative Biology graduate student professional development course.

Your chair describes your attitude toward students as “incredibly generous.”  Your students were even more emphatic, writing “While the marks of a superb scientist are quickly identifiable on their CV, the marks of a superb mentor are far less obvious.  Here, Kay’s distinguishing habits include a respect for all persons and never-ending willingness to help.  Such actions are not only time-consuming, but they are also selfless . . . . Kay engages in such mentorship activities—both in the traditional sense within academia as well as in non-academic settings–routinely and without a second thought.”

In honor of your receipt of the award, the Graduate School will provide you with $3000 to support mentoring activities.  Please be in touch with me about the kinds of activities you would like to support.  We can provide funding in this budget year, defer all of it, or split the amount.  You will also receive an engraved plaque in honor of the award.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Kay Holekamp receives the MSU Graduate School Outstanding Faculty Mentor Award

Kalyanmoy Deb, BEACON’s Koenig Endowed Chair Professor, has crossed 100,000 citations

Screen Shot 2017-04-20 at 1.15.52 PM
Kalyanmoy Deb, Koenig Endowed Chair Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and a BEACON member, has crossed 100,000 citation mark according to Google Scholar ( He is one of the two faculty members in the College of Engineering, and one among four at MSU to achieve this recognition according to Google Scholar ( His h-index is 102, indicating 102 of his publications have received at least 102 citations each. For more information about his research in evolutionary computation and optimization, visit or his COIN lab website

Kalyan’s and his work have been seen repeatedly on our blog

Pareto Improvement of Pareto-Based Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms (October 5, 2016)
BEACON at GECCO 2016 (August 18, 2016)
BEACON Researchers at Work: Evolution makes software adaptive (March 10, 2014)
BEACON Researchers at Work: What’s a Genetic Algorithm? (October 28, 2013)
Kalyanmoy Deb receives the World Academy of Sciences Prize in Engineering Sciences (October 18, 2013)
BEACON’s Kalyanmoy Deb receives honorary doctorate (September 18, 2013)
BEACON’s Kalyanmoy Deb wins Cajastur Mamdani Prize for Soft Computing (December 8, 2011)

Some of Kalyan’s most cited work includes…

K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, volume 6, no. 2, pages 182-197. (23,553 Citations)

This is most likely the highest-cited paper in evolutionary computation. This paper suggested an evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMO) algorithm, which parameter-less, modular, and computationally fast. NSGA-II boosted the research and application of EMO and is implemented in a number of commercial optimization softwares.

N Srinivas and K Deb. (1995). Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolutionary computation, volume 2, no. 3, pages 221-248. (6,003 Citations)

The NSGA procedure proposed in this paper was the precursor of NSGA-II and is one of the three first EMO methods which demonstrated the suitability of evolutionary algorithms for finding multiple Pareto-optimal solutions for a multi-objective optimization problem.

Zitzler, K. Deb, and L Thiele. (1999). Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evolutionary computation, volume 8, no. 2, pages 173-195. (4,349 Citations).

This paper proposed a six-problem test suite for multi-objective optimization, which are largely known as ZDT problems today. The paper also compared a number of existing EMO methods for solving ZDT test problems. ZDT problems allowed EMO researchers to evaluate their algorithms in a systematic manner.

Posted in BEACON in the News, BEACON Researchers at Work, Member Announcements | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Kalyanmoy Deb, BEACON’s Koenig Endowed Chair Professor, has crossed 100,000 citations

James Foster Honored at EvoStar Conference in Amsterdam

Informal presentation at Conference Banquet Thursday, April 20, 2017.

On Thursday, April 20, 2017, BEACON’s Lead at University of Idaho, Prof. James Foster, was honored by SPECIES, the professional organization that sponsors the annual EvoStar Conference, at its the 20th annual Evostar Conference, this year held in Amsterdam. He was one of two members honored for their lifetime contributions, winning the 2017 EvoCROC Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Evolutionary Computation in Europe. While this award is generally given to Europeans, Foster’s record of contributions to the field and his participation and leadership in the EuroGP Conference, one of EvoStar’s four conferences, won him this recognition. The other awardee was Prof. Gusz Eiben of the Free University of Amsterdam. On hand to help award the prizes was BEACON’s Prof. Wolfgang Banzhaf, the John R. Koza Endowed Chair in Genetic Programming, and Treasurer of SPECIES, BEACON Director Erik Goodman and Idaho BEACONites Terry Soule and Barrie Robison.

More formal presentation at EvoStar Awards and Closing Session, Friday, April 21, 2017. Left to right (standing) are: Ernesto Costa, Penousal Machado, Marc Schoenauer, Wolfgang Banzhaf, James Foster, Anna Esparcia, Gusz Eiben and Jennifer Willies.

James Foster and Gusz Eiben, the 2017 winners of the EvoCROC Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to EC in Europe.

Posted in BEACON in the News, BEACON Researchers at Work, BEACONites, Member Announcements | Tagged , | Comments Off on James Foster Honored at EvoStar Conference in Amsterdam

BEACON-sponsored “Business for Scientists” course at UI

With supplemental funding from NSF, BEACON is co-sponsoring a week-long “Business for Scientists” course offered at the University of Idaho, May 22-26. This course is designed to help junior faculty, postdocs, and scientific staff run their research program like a successful business (see the flyer for additional details). The course is free to attend, and there is travel and accommodation support available from BEACON. You must RSVP by emailing by May 5. If you would like to apply for BEACON travel funds to this course, please contact Danielle Whittaker.

Posted in Education, Member Announcements | Comments Off on BEACON-sponsored “Business for Scientists” course at UI

Why We March

This post is written by NCA&T faculty Joe Graves

On the 13th of April, Nature, the publication of the British Association for Advancement of Science (and founded by Charles Darwin) endorsed the March for Science ( ). Nature is one of over 100 professional scientific organization that have endorsed the march, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Union of Concerned Scientists, the European Geosciences Union, American Chemical Society, and others. There are now over 500 satellite marches planned (including all the BEACON partner sites: Lansing, MI; Pullman WA and Moscow, ID; Seattle, WA; and Austin, TX). As a member of the coordinating committee for March for Science (Greensboro) I would like to extend to all BEACONites a personal invitation to join us on April 22nd, 2017 as we march to inform the public concerning the crucial importance of supporting both the scientific method of reasoning and enterprise for the health of our nation and world.

This march is about much more than recent cuts to science funding. Having said that, the projected cuts are stark. Last month, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) released an analysis of the Trump administration’s FY 2018 budget’s impact on scientific research and education2. The Trump budget would increase military spending by 10% to approximately $639 billion dollars. To pay for this increase cuts are projected to occur for the Environmental Protection Agency (-30%), Department of Agriculture (-29%), Department of Energy offices of Science (-16%) and to the National Institutes of Health (-18%).   The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant programs would be cut by $250 million. These programs support coastal and marine research and education. The Sea Grant program, which provides research, education, and extension services, would be eliminated.

At a time when the world is in dire need of advances in scientific research such cuts could have disastrous consequences. Therefore it is imperative to march to demonstrate our passion for science and sound a call to support and safeguard the scientific community. The incredible and immediate outpouring of support for the marches has made clear that these concerns are also shared by the support of hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

It is also crucial to reject the mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue. Despite the popular conception that most scientists are political “liberals”, scientists have always displayed ideological views that cross the political spectrum. Let us not forget that Wernher Von Braun (who utilized Jewish slave labor to build his rockets) and Shiro Ichii (microbiologist head of Unit 761 that deployed anthrax and bubonic plague weapons on Chinese civilians) were scientists. In addition both of these men had their war crimes ignored because the technology they developed was desired by the United States after World War II had ended. Indeed, as I have mentioned in earlier posts, science as an enterprise and many scientists have often been ardent supporters of unjust and inhumane social policies. Indeed, despots of all varieties and flavors are more than happy to support scientific research and products that are consistent with their own political agenda. The US Supreme Court utilized the science of the racial polygenists (Louis Agassiz and Samuel Morton) to justify their decision that Dred Scott or any other Negro had “no rights that a white man was bound to respect” in 1857 (Graves 2005) and about 50 years later would deny that same racial science in not recognizing the right to citizenship of Bhagat Singh Thind under the Caucasian requirement (Bean and Lee 2009). Just as today there is no argument made by policy makers against the science involved in producing and deploying the “mother of all bombs”, GBU-43/B used in Afghanistan last week ( ), while at the same time they have no problem denying the physics and chemistry behind anthropogenic climate change.

What scientists agree on is the power of our method, dubbed “the scientific method” to provide the world utilitarian knowledge about nature. Evolutionary science is among those fields most fertile in that regard. As early as the 1940’s evolutionary biologists like Th. Dobzhansky warned the world concerning the danger resulting from the unchecked use of pesticides and antibiotics. At the time, these warnings were summarily ignored (e.g. Van den Bosch 1978), yet it is now recognized that we may be entering the “post-antibiotic” phase of human civilization ( In a more strange case, scientists including evolutionary biologists utilized knowledge of past global level extinction events, warned the world concerning the fallacy of “limited nuclear war” (Ehrlich et al. 1983). These warnings have gone unheeded, as the United States still maintains a nuclear arsenal capable of killing the world’s population eight times over (although it can be argued that the movement to build more powerful non-nuclear engines of mass destruction is evidence that these warnings have been taken seriously).

The mistaken view that scientists are political liberals has given some of our current policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, especially when it contradicts their specific political agenda or the profit motives of those who put them into office.  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current attack on climate science. For example, Dr. Michael Mann warned congress of the dangers of this phenomenon over 14 years ago. Since that time he has been sued, forced to testify in front of congress, been investigated, and received death threats (Mann and Toles 2016).

So in reality, it is not that those in power do not accept science, it is that they “cherry pick” which science they will accept and support. The Republican Party has been historically anti-evolution mainly because much of its political base (evangelical Christians) is anti-evolution. It is now anti-climate science because much of its financial support comes from industries that want to continue developing and burning fossil fuels. Days after taking office, the Trump Administration initiated a poll asking American manufacturers how to best cut federal regulations to make it easier for companies to get their projects approved. There were 168 comments received and ½ were directed at the Environmental Protection Agency and 1/5 toward the Department of Labor. Some examples of these comments include:

BP wants to make it easier to drill for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico by reducing how often companies must renew their leases.

A trade association representing the pavement industry wants to preclude the U.S. Geological Survey from conducting what the group says is “advocacy research” into the environmental impact of coal tar. The Pavement Coatings Technology Council says this research could limit what it uses to seal parking lots and driveways.


Clearly in the case of both of these comments, scientific principles and scientists working for these corporations are involved in both drilling for oil and gas, and developing the sealing technologies mentioned.

Thus I do not see the rejection of science as the most critical and urgent matter to be addressed by this march. More it is scientists themselves recognizing that science and its applications have always been political. In this light, it is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies for the public good to take a stand and be counted. Many who take the podium this week will be not be willing to make the distinctions I have discussed above. They will be parroting time worn platitudes and trying to find the lowest common denominator concerning how and why science should be supported. On the contrary, I will be speaking to the need for scientists to rise up against those who are applying our craft to support the corporate greed that is driving the wanton destruction of our environment and against those who are applying our craft to maintain social injustice. I will call scientists to imagine a different way of working for humanity.

Indeed, for this to happen we as scientists will have to look inwards. We will have to ask questions about why we do what we do, and how the science enterprise is in the main still a Eurocentric, male-dominated, heterosexist project. If we can manage this conversation productively we will move towards the day when our community will be more representative of all socially-defined races and ethnicities, religions, gender identities, sexual orientations, abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, political perspectives, and nationalities. And with this diversity, we will be more capable of implementing scientific research that actually does better the lives of all those who now depend on us more than ever before.


Bean, F.dD. and Lee, J. Plus ḉa Change. . .? Multiraciality and the Dynamics of Race Relations in the United States, Journal of Social Issues 65(1):205—209, 2009.

Ehrlich, P.R., Harte, J., Harwell, M.A., Raven, P.H., et al., Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war, Science 222: 1293—3000, 1983.

Graves, J.L., The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U. Press), 2005.

Mann, M. and Toles, T., The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy (New York: Columbia University Press), 2016.

Van den Bosch, R., The Pesticide Conspiracy, (Berkeley, CA: U. California Press), 1978.


Posted in Member Announcements | Comments Off on Why We March