Hidden Figures Beyond: Alexa Canady, the First African-American Neurosurgeon

This article will be the first of a series of articles I hope to continue called Hidden Figures Beyond. The goal of this series is to go beyond the movie Hidden Figures, highlighting more scientists that are underrepresented minorities whose research and studies continue to make an impact on the discovery of knowledge today. The first scientist that I will be highlighting is the first African-American neurosurgeon in America, Alexa Canady. She is retired now, but I would like to discuss her history with neurosurgery and the research that she focused on and its impact.

To give a quick description of her early life, Alexa Canady was born in Lansing, Michigan to Elizabeth Hortense Canady and Clinton Canady Jr. Her mother was an educator and her father was a dentist, so she and her brother grew up in an education-based environment. Her family always emphasized the importance of education, especially as an African-American woman, which motivated her to graduate from her high school with honors and to attend the University of Michigan to earn. However, like most college students, she had her fair share of struggles as well. As a mathematics major, she had a ‘crisis of confidence’, questioning her place at the University of Michigan. When she learned about a minority scholarship for medicine, she felt an instant connection and decided to pursue it, thus switching her major to zoology and earning her bachelor’s degree in 1971, then graduating cum laude from medical school there in 1975. After graduating, she interned at Yale-New Haven Hospital for a year, where she still faced discrimination, being told on her first day, “You must be our new equal opportunity package.” Despite this, she continued to strive and be voted as one of the top interns by the physicians on her staff.

After her internship, she had her residency at the University of Minnesota from 1976 to 1981, when she started a fellowship at Children’s Hospital in Philidelphia. In 1982, she completed her fellowship and was soon hired onto the faculty of Detroit’s Henry Ford Hospital. She worked there until she was hired as the chief of pediatric neurosurgery at the Children’s Hospital of Michigan in 1987. Canady specialized and researched in life-threatening illnesses, congenital spinal abnormalities, and other brain injuries like hydrocephalus, trauma and brain tumors. She performed many life-saving treatments on thousands of patients, most of her patients being ten years or younger. During her time in Detroit, she researched at Wayne State University to improve neurosurgical technology with two other neuroscientists. This research led to the development of an antisiphon shunt that helps to treat hydrocephalus, an abnormal accumulation of fluid inside the brain. She continued this work until her partial retirement in 2001, retiring to Florida. During this time, she worked as a part-time surgeon until her complete retirement in 2012. Even though Canady is retired, she is still a full-time role model for African-Americans interested in STEM, and working on the issues of medical bias of African-American patients.

 

As I learned more and more about Alexa Canady and what an amazing scientist she is, I was also a little sad about the fact that she really isn’t very well known, even though she has done so much and has saved the lives of so many people. She’s stated that she doesn’t want the attention, but she is an inspirational role model and now that I know about her story, I don’t think I ever want to forget about her and her legacy. I’d like to leave this quote from a recent interview of hers when she was asked why young students should pursue neuroscience to perfectly define her life and legacy.

“It’s fun to make people better… It’s intellectually challenging, you get kind of a high when everybody says ‘Ah the neurosurgeon is here.’”
-Alexa Canady, 2017

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.