The 91探花 is proud to announce that 56 faculty and researchers who completed their work while at 91探花have been named on the list from Clarivate.

The annual list identifies researchers who demonstrated significant influence in their chosen field or fields through the publication of multiple highly cited papers during the last decade. Their names are drawn from the publications that rank in the top 1% by citations for field and publication year in the .

Highly Cited Researchers demonstrate significant and broad influence in their fields of research. The total list includes 7,131 awards from more than 1,300 institutions in 60 countries and regions. This small fraction of the global researcher population contributes disproportionately to extending the frontiers of knowledge and contributing to innovations that make the world healthier, more sustainable and which drive societal impact, according to Clarivate.

The that determines the 鈥渨ho鈥檚 who鈥� of influential researchers is drawn from data and analysis performed by bibliometric experts and data scientists at the Institute for Scientific Information at Clarivate.

The list below includes faculty and researchers whose primary affiliation is with the UW, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

Please note: Some of the people on the list are no longer with the 91探花and their current affiliation is noted. This list reflects initial data from Clarivate and may be updated.

Ivan Anishchenko (Vilya)

David Baker

William A. Banks

Gregory N. Bratman

Steven L. Brunton

Guozhong Cao

Ting Cao

Lauren Carter (Gates Medical Research Institute)

Helen Chu

David H. Cobden

Katharine H. D. Crawford

Riza M. Daza

Frank DiMaio

Kristie L. Ebi

Evan E. Eichler

Emmanuela Gakidou

David Ginger

Raphael Gottardo (CHUV)

Alexander L. Greninger

Simon I. Hay

Andrew Hill (Infinimmune)

Eric Huang

Michael C. Jensen (BrainChild)

Neil P.听 King

C. Dirk Keene

J. Nathan Kutz

Eric H. Larson

Aaron Lyon

Michael J. MacCoss

Brendan MacLean

C. M. Marcus

Julian D. Marshall

Ali Mokdad

Thomas J. Montine (Stanford)

Mohsen Naghavi

Marian L. Neuhouser

Julian D. Olden

Robert W. Palmatier

David Pigott

Hannah A. Pliner (Bristol Myers Squibb)

Ganesh Raghu

Stanley Riddell

Andrea Schietinger (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)

Jay Shendure

M. Alejandra Tortorici

Troy R. Torgerson (Allen Institute)

Cole Trapnell

Katherine R. Tuttle

David Veesler

Theo Vos

Alexandra C. Walls (BioNTech SE)

Bryan J. Weiner

Di Xiao

Jie Xiao

Xiaodong Xu

Jihui Yang

Think of your last memorable moment in nature. Did you spot a bird you鈥檝e never seen before? Dip your toes in a river? Maybe climb a tree?

New research from the 91探花, recently published in the , examined whether children鈥檚 interactions with nature that are embodied, rather than just visual, are associated with being in the moment and feeling connected to something beyond the self.

Researchers coded responses from 127 Girl Scouts, ages 8-11, about a recent meaningful nature experience. A questionnaire then assessed the degree to which participants experienced presence in nature, the study鈥檚 term for being in the moment. Exploratory analyses found that participants who had embodied interactions reported a greater sense of presence in nature than those who reported only visual interactions.听

, co-author of the study and doctoral student of psychology at the UW, talked with 91探花News about the study.

Can you explain the difference between embodied and visual interactions with nature?

Carly Gray: We think of embodied nature interactions as engaging senses other than just vision. One鈥檚 whole body is often involved. Whether you鈥檙e moving or being still, you鈥檙e experiencing nature through more than just your eyes. A visual nature interaction is one that just uses the sense of vision 鈥� maybe watching a bird through a window or looking at the textures in a leaf.

To identify visual and embodied interactions in the study, we applied what we call an interaction pattern approach, which is a way of characterizing the how humans interact with nature. A relatively abstract interaction pattern could be something like 鈥渓istening to animals.鈥� That interaction pattern could encompass more specific interactions ranging from 鈥渉earing your neighbor鈥檚 dog bark鈥� to 鈥渉earing birdsong in a forest.鈥�

That leads us to the idea of presence. How do you use that term in the context of this study, and how does it tie in with the other ideas you were discussing?听

CG: We think of presence as a meaningful experience with optimal awareness and some sense of connection beyond the self 鈥� whether that鈥檚 the natural environment that one is in, some higher power, other people you鈥檙e with, or something else. It鈥檚 frankly difficult to put into words, which I think speaks to some of the power of what these experiences can feel like. In this study, we were looking specifically at presence in nature.

How did you then quantify this information?

CG: We developed questions based on existing measures and created some questions of our own. We used these questions to ask the Girl Scouts about their experience of presence in nature during the experiences they had just written about.

We asked the Girl Scouts to write about a meaningful nature experience and tell us where they were, what they were doing and why the experience was meaningful. We combed through these written narratives to identify interaction patterns and developed a coding manual to describe how to do this in a standardized way. After reading through half of these nature experiences, we looked at the interaction patterns and noticed that a lot of them were relying on vision. Primarily, we noticed a lot of verbs like seeing, watching, looking, staring. For example, a visual nature interaction would be 鈥渓ooking at a tall tree.鈥�

We wanted to know what might be different between the Girl Scouts who reported solely visual experiences versus more embodied nature experiences. The Girl Scouts who engaged in nature using more action-oriented verbs 鈥� talking, listening, smelling, feeling 鈥� engaged in embodied nature interactions. For example, 鈥渂uilding a snowman鈥� and 鈥渉iking on a trail鈥� came up in a few participants鈥� narratives. We considered these embodied nature interactions. Some of my other favorite examples were 鈥渢alking to chickens,鈥� 鈥渏umping in puddles,鈥� and 鈥渢hrowing snowballs.鈥�

Based on their interaction patterns, some Girl Scouts were categorized as having only had visual experiences. If a Girl Scout wrote about at least one interaction that used a non-visual verb, they were categorized as having had an embodied experience. We compared these two groups, embodied and only visual, based on their numeric scores on our measure of presence in nature and found that the Girl Scouts who reported embodied nature interactions also reported a stronger sense of presence in nature.

What are some potential practical implications of this research?

CG: I think this is a promising first step into understanding what it might mean to have a meaningful experience in nature, especially among young children. In this paper, we wrote specifically about applications to environmental education. For example, children can be encouraged to smell nature by finding nature items that smell good to them, like pinecones or flowers, and bringing those back to the classroom for an age-appropriate ecology lesson. A writing lesson could begin with students listening to nature with their eyes closed and then writing a creative short story about what they imagined they heard. We expect these embodied educational activities might foster a greater connection to nature and a sense of meaning through experiences of presence in nature.

We conducted this study with 8-to-11-year-old Girl Scouts, but I think it could have implications for educating young people of all ages. In my teaching, I鈥檓 a big fan of getting whole bodies involved in the learning process. So, I think this idea of embodied versus visual interactions with nature could be applied all the way from preschoolers to through college students.

Embodied nature interactions don鈥檛 need to be limited to educational settings, either. This idea of embodied versus visual nature interactions can be a helpful framework for parents and families to think about meaningful ways to spend time interacting with nature with their children. This Earth Day, consider how you can go beyond looking at spring flowers to engage with nature in more fully embodied ways.

Other co-authors were , 91探花professor of psychology and of environmental and forest sciences; , 91探花professor of environmental and forest sciences; , associate professor of pediatrics in the 91探花School of Medicine; , 91探花associate professor of environmental and forest sciences; , lead public health research scientist at ICF, who earned her doctorate in environmental and forest sciences at the UW; and of the Girl Scouts of Western Washington.

The study was funded by the Richard King Mellon Foundation.

For more information, contact Carly Gray at cgray19@uw.edu.

Spending time in nature is good for us. Studies have shown that contact with nature can lift our well-being by . Even brief exposure to nature can help. One well-known study found that hospital patients recovered faster .

Knowing more about nature鈥檚 effects on our bodies could not only help our well-being, but could also improve how we care for land, preserve ecosystems and design cities, homes and parks. Yet studies on the benefits of contact with nature have typically focused primarily on how seeing nature affects us. There has been less focus on what the nose knows. That is something a group of researchers wants to change.

鈥淲e are immersed in a world of odorants, and we have a sophisticated olfactory system that processes them, with resulting impacts on our emotions and behavior,鈥� said , a 91探花 assistant professor of environmental and forest sciences. 鈥淏ut compared to research on the benefits of seeing nature, we don鈥檛 know nearly as much about how the impacts of nature鈥檚 scents and olfactory cues affect us.鈥�

In a published May 15 in Science Advances, Bratman and colleagues from around the world outline ways to expand research into how odors and scents from natural settings impact our health and well-being. The interdisciplinary group of experts in olfaction, psychology, ecology, public health, atmospheric science and other fields are based at institutions in the U.S., the U.K., Taiwan, Germany, Poland and Cyprus.

At its core, the human sense of smell, or olfaction, is a in constant operation. The nose is packed with hundreds of olfactory receptors, which are sophisticated chemical sensors. Together, they can , and that information gets delivered directly to the nervous system for our minds to interpret 鈥� consciously or otherwise.

The natural world releases a steady stream of chemical compounds to keep our olfactory system busy. Plants in particular exude , that can persist in the air for hours or days. VOCs perform many functions for plants, such as repelling herbivores or attracting pollinators. Some researchers have studied the impact of exposures to plant VOCs on people.

鈥淲e know bits and pieces of the overall picture,鈥� said Bratman. 鈥淏ut there is so much more to learn. We are proposing a framework, informed by important research from many others, on how to investigate the intimate links between olfaction, nature and human well-being.鈥�

Nature鈥檚 smell-mediated impacts likely come through different routes, according to the authors. Some chemical compounds, including a subset of those from the invisible realm of plant VOCs, may be acting on us without our conscious knowledge. In these cases, olfactory receptors in the nose could be initiating a 鈥渟ubthreshold鈥� response to molecules that people are largely unaware of. Bratman and his co-authors are calling for vastly expanded research on when, where and how these undetected biochemical processes related to natural VOCs may affect us.

Other olfactory cues are picked up consciously, but scientists still don鈥檛 fully understand all their impacts on our health and well-being. Some scents, for example, may have 鈥渦niversal鈥� interpretations to humans 鈥� something that nearly always smells pleasant, like a sweet-smelling flower. Other scents are closely tied to specific memories, or have associations and interpretations that vary by culture and personal experience, as research by co-author of the University of Oxford has shown.

鈥淯nderstanding how olfaction mediates our relationships with the natural world and the benefits we receive from it are multi-disciplinary undertakings,鈥� said Bratman. 鈥淚t involves insights from olfactory function research, Indigenous knowledge, Western psychology, anthropology, atmospheric chemistry, forest ecology, 鈥� or 鈥榝orest bathing鈥� 鈥� neuroscience, and more.鈥�

Investigation into the potential links between our sense of smell and positive experiences with nature includes research by co-author at University College London, which shows that the cultural significance of smells, including those from nature, can be passed down in communities to each new generation. Co-author at Birmingham City University has delved into the associations people have with scents in built environments and urban gardens.

Other co-authors have shown that nature leaves its signature in the very air we breathe. Forests, for example, release a complex chemical milieux into the air. Research by co-author at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and the Cyprus Institute shows how natural VOCs can react and mix in the atmosphere, with repercussions for olfactory environments.

The authors are also calling for more studies to investigate how human activity alters nature鈥檚 olfactory footprint 鈥� both by pollution, which can modify or destroy odorants in the air, and by reducing habitats that release beneficial scents.

鈥淗uman activity is modifying the environment so quickly in some cases that we鈥檙e learning about these benefits while we鈥檙e simultaneously making them more difficult for people to access,鈥� said Bratman. 鈥淎s research illuminates more of these links, our hope is that we can make more informed decisions about our impacts on the natural world and the volatile organic compounds that come from it. As we say in the paper, we live within the chemical contexts that nature creates. Understanding this more can contribute to human well-being and advance efforts to protect the natural world.鈥�

Other 91探花co-authors on the paper are , profess of psychology; , a graduate student in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; and , a clinical associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences. Additional co-authors are of Stanford University; at the University of Pennsylvania; Thomas Hummel of the Dresden University of Technology; of the University of California, Berkeley; John Miller of Wildwood|Mahonia; Anna Oleszkiewicz of the University of Wroc艂aw; of Oregon Health and Sciences University; of the Monell Chemical Senses Center; and of Harvard University; and Chia-Pin Yu of National Taiwan University.

For more information, contact Bratman at bratman@uw.edu.

The 91探花 is proud to announce that more than 40 faculty and researchers who completed their work while at 91探花have been named on the annual list from Clarivate.

The annual list identifies researchers who demonstrated significant influence in their chosen field or fields through the publication of multiple highly cited papers during the last decade. Their names are drawn from the publications that rank in the top 1% by citations for field and publication year in the Web of Science citation index.

The list of faculty and researchers whose primary affiliation is with the 91探花or with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation who were acknowledged for their work includes:

David Baker

William A. Banks

Gregory N. Bratman

Steven L. Brunton

Guozhong Cao

William A. Catterall

Helen Chu

David H. Cobden

Katharine H.D. Crawford

Riza M. Daza

Frank DiMaio

Evan E. Eichler

Michael Gale Jr.

Raphael Gottardo

Allison J. Greaney

Alexander L. Greninger

Simon I. Hay

Celestia S. Higano

Neil P. King

James B. Leverenz

Charles M. Marcus

Philip Mease

Ali Mokdad

Thomas J. Montine*

Christopher J. L. Murray

Mohsen Naghavi

William S. Noble

Young-Jun Park

David M. Pigott

Stanley Riddell

Andrea Schietinger **

Jay Shendure

M. Alejandra Tortorici

Troy R. Torgerson***

Cole Trapnell

David Veesler

Theo Vos

Alexandra C. Walls****

Bryan J. Weiner

Spencer A. Wood

Sanfeng Wu

Di Xiao

Xiaodong Xu

The that determines the 鈥渨ho鈥檚 who鈥� of influential researchers draws on the data and analysis performed by bibliometric experts and data scientists at the Institute for Scientific Information at Clarivate. It also uses the tallies to identify the countries and research institutions where these scientific elite are based.

The full 2023 Highly Cited Researchers list and executive summary can be found online .

* now is at Stanford University.

** now is at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

*** now is at the Allen Institute.

**** now is at BoiNTech SE.

now is at Princeton University.

The 91探花 is proud to announce that 47 faculty and researchers who completed their work while at 91探花have been named on the annual list from Clarivate.

The highly anticipated annual list identifies researchers who demonstrated significant influence in their chosen field or fields through the publication of multiple highly cited papers during the last decade. Their names are drawn from the publications that rank in the top 1% by citations for field and publication year in the Web of Science citation index.

The list of faculty and researchers who were acknowledged for their work while at 91探花includes:

• David Baker
• Frank DiMaio
• William Sheffler
• Dr. Jay Shendure
• Cole Trapnell
• David Veesler
• Alexandra C. Walls*
• Philip Mease
• Dr. Christopher J. L. Murray
• Dr. Ganesh Raghu
• Dr. Stanley Riddell
• Alejandra Tortorici
• Dr. William A. Banks
• Gregory N. Bratman
• Steven L. Brunton
• Guozhong Cao
• William A. Catterall
• David H. Cobden
• Riza M. Daza
• Dr. E. Patchen Dellinger
• Dr. Janet A. Englund
• E. Erskine
• Michael Gale Jr.
• Raphael Gottardo
• Celestia S. Higano
• Neil P. King
• Ali Mokdad
• William S. Noble
• Julian D. Olden
• L. Patrick
• David L. Smith
• Dr. Piper Meigs Treuting
• Spencer A. Wood
• Jesse R. Zaneveld
• Ning Zheng
• Dr. Hans D. Ochs
• Simon I. Hay
• Evan E. Eichler
• Deborah A. Nickerson**
• John A. Stamatoyannopoulos***
• Dr. Thomas J. Montine****
• Di Xiao
• Xiaodong Xu
• Bryan J. Weiner
• Mohsen Naghavi
• Theo Vos
• David M. Pigott

The that determines the 鈥渨ho鈥檚 who鈥� of influential researchers draws on the data and analysis performed by bibliometric experts and data scientists at the Institute for Scientific Information at Clarivate. It also uses the tallies to identify the countries and research institutions where these scientific elite are based. This year Clarivate partnered with Retraction Watch and extended the qualitative analysis of the Highly Cited Researchers list, addressing increasing concerns over potential misconduct.

The full 2022 Highly Cited Researchers list and executive summary can be found online .

* now is at BioNTech SE.

** on Dec. 24, 2021.

*** now is at Altius.

**** now is at Stanford University.