The Brain under the Outfit

Last week a staff member at my university, who knows me only in the capacity of being a student employee, inquired as to what book I was reading. I told her I was reading Spook but did not bother to rattle off the whole title. I set my book down and proceeded to ring up her items (it’s summer, so yes, I am allowed to read at work when it’s slow). As she was about to turn around and leave she hesitated and then asked me what the book was about. After giving her the full title, Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife, and a brief description of the book, she asked about my major and then commented, “I now see you in a whole other dimension. You are no longer just the pretty girl in the pretty clothes. I was a little afraid to ask you what Spook was about because I assumed it was just some cheap romance, mystery novel.” HA!!!! Me???? Read something like that??? I’d rather come to work in my pajamas!

SURPRISE! There IS a brain under this outfit. And NO, not all fashion conscious young women in high heels equate the term "well read" with romance novels and Cosmopolitan magazine. I’ve met my goal. I don’t fit the mold. I’m not the stereotypical science nerd. I’m changing people’s perceptions one small step at a time. While I’m not offended by this woman’s comments (it’s not her fault that, like all of us, she is filled with unconscious stereotypes that have been beaten into her by our lovely society), it is a reminder that people are going to make assumptions about me based on how I look. It means I might have to work harder to prove myself and to get people to see who I really am. It’s worth it, though. I am up for the challenge because maybe, just maybe, this woman will think twice about the depths of intellectual capacity that may be beneath the next stylish, nail-polished, perfume-wearing, high-heeled, young woman she comes across.

It Takes All Kinds

I realize that the following are broad generalizations and that not everybody fits into one of these categories. However, these are my observations of the overall population of biology students I currently find myself amongst. As a chemistry major, I noticed a similar division among the students.Take what you will from it. I was going to apologize for offending anyone but then I realized that it's not my fault if you don't have a good sense of humor about life and don't know how to make fun of yourself.

Type 1 - The Pre-Med/Pre-Vet/Pre-Extremely Competitive Healthcare Program Student:

These students are all about getting A's. And I don't mean A-'s. Never trust one of these students when they say they did poorly on an exam because it probably means they received a score of 91%. They are extremely competitive and driven. While they are high-achieving students, they are not necessarily interested in whatever science classes they may be taking at the time. Often, they see these courses as a means to an end. They may get blind sighted by their need for A's and fail to see the big picture. All they want to know is, "Will this be on the exam???" After all, if they aren't going to be tested on it, why learn it? Certainly it must not be important or at all relevant to their future careers. As far as appearance goes, these students come in all varieties. But, typically, they are well -groomed, athletic, and ready to be the next "Dr. McDreamy".

Type 2 - The Field/Wildlife Biologist Student

These students are easy to pick out of the crowd because they are always dressed to be out in the field. Common accessories to their outdoor wear includes Nalgene water bottles or other resusable containers, unlike the pre-med students who sip on lattes and mochas out of non-reusable paper cups. These students tend to be very concerned about the earth and animals, but are less in tune with human concerns. If one of these students were a first responder at an emergency, they would be inclined to save the injured animals before saving any injured humans. While these students may be A students, they are not necessarily concerned with just getting A's and do not cry or become suicidal/homicidal when getting a B or even a C. In fact, they may play hooky a time or two to extend a weekend camping trip and will be able to miss class without any anxiety over their grades.

Type 3 - The Pre-Grad School Student

Students who want to attend grad school are high-achieving like the pre-med types but less driven by grades and more by the material they are learning. These students may be wildlife/field types who want to go on to grad school or may be interested in a grad program that involves lab research. These students are much quieter than the pre-med types and when they do speak up in class they tend to ask questions that nobody but the professor can understand. These are the true science nerds who do science just because they like it. They may be identified by the lap top which they bring to class to furiously type out every word the professor says. Often, these students travel alone. They also tend to silently set the curve on exams which really angers the pre-med students who cannot figure out who the curve setter was.

Type 4 - The Apathetic Student

These students were formerly pre-med or pre-grad school students who somewhere along the way lost hope for themselves. The apathetic students are just as bright as their peers but their grades don't always reflect this. They did not leave science for another major because they have scientific minds and can't imagine themselves doing anything else. These are the students who have somehow lost their way and are no longer sure about their future goals. Because of their lack of direction, they tend to procrastinate, skip class, and appear generally unmotivated. These are the students who sit together and make jokes out of everything while drawing cartoons or doodling instead of taking notes during lecture. Also, these students tend to be bored. They roll their eyes every time they have to hear the basics about photosynthesis and want to poke their eyes out when people ask questions in class like, "Isn't the Calvin Cycle the same as the Kreb's Cycle?" They also make fun of the pre-med students every time they take up 15 minutes of class with questions about the exam. While they have higher expectations for themselves than would appear, they have found comfort in not giving it their all because then they always have an excuse when their performance is less than desired. At one point, they may have cried over a B. These days, they are just happy to pass their classes.

Going Soft

I will be the first to admit that I have made such comments as, "If I wanted a 4.0 I would have been a psychology major." I have been disgruntled about how those "other" majors have it easier because they don't have classes on Friday or 3 hour labs to attend. I have, at times, said snobby things about social scientists. And, I'm sorry. I should know better. I come from a non-traditional academic background and in my 200+ undergraduate credits, have gained a great appreciation for a wide range of academic disciplines. I have learned an immense amount from not just my science professors, but psychology professors and writing professors alike. I should REALLY know better because I have been adopted into social science/humanities professor circles and know from first-hand experience that these professors are just as intelligent as my chemistry professors. So, I do not take it personally when chemistry students stop me in the hall and say things like, "How is the biology department? Aren't you sick of just counting squirrels all day?" or "I heard you became a psych major. Oh, you became a biology major, same thing." There is a certain level of friendly academic jousting among disciplines. But, there is also a serious misconception about the "hard sciences" and the "soft sciences" and it is unfortunate. Many, though certainly not all, professors and students in the physical sciences truly believe that they are doing "real" science and that somehow they are superior as a result. I have also been in psychology classes (not with R.W-S!) where the professor has completely skipped over the biological sections saying, "Well we'll leave that to the biologists." (hmmm, last I checked you can't have a brain without biology and you can't have psychology without a brain) Yes, there are distinct differences between the methodologies of these branches of science but there has to be. In some ways, I think social science is more difficult than physical science. Trying to understand the complexities of human cognitive processes or the intricacies of an entire culture is quite the task. It is easy to do lab experiments in which you can control the number of variables. In areas of social science, there are numerous variables that can be impossible to control for. At its root, science is about trying to understand the world around us, from the way molecules interact to the way humans interact. There are those that understand molecules better than people and those that understand people better than molecules. This is a good thing! Let's all have a bit more respect for each other and remember that whether we realize it or not, our academic disciplines do overlap in the real world and we have valuable information to share amongst ourselves.

Publish or Perish OR Publish and Perish?

The following article was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog. It reports that plagiarism is not uncommon in primary scientific articles. Based on the story below, it seems that the majority of the plagiarism is unintentional. The predominant issue is that far too many researchers are publishing "original" ideas without giving credit to previously published research documenting the same ideas. With so many online article databases, I wonder how this is happening? Are researchers in such a hurry to submit their work that they are failing to take the time to do proper background research? Or, are there too many scientists out there without the proper tools to thoroughly research the topic they are invesigating? Either way, this is an excellent example of why it is important to develop these skills because, clearly, even peer-reviewed academic journals are not perfect.






March 6, 2009



Plagiarism in Science Research Is Often Ignored, Studies Find



Washington — Shock. Denial. Disbelief. Sadness. Regret. Embarrassment.
Those, according to a commentary published today in Science magazine, are some of the reactions from both scientists and science journals when they are found to be involved in cases of potential plagiarism.
The commentary was offered by researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, who used a computer-based text-searching tool to analyze millions of randomly selected research abstracts.
The analysis of Medline, a database of biomedical research articles, found 9,120 entries “with high levels of citation similarity and no overlapping authors,” including 212 pairs of articles “with signs of potential plagiarism,” the researchers wrote.
The lead author, Harold Garner, a professor of biochemistry and internal medicine at the medical center, said he and his colleagues then conducted a survey of the authors and journal editors, promising them anonymity. The survey responses, Mr. Garner wrote, included explanations, denials, embarrassed apologies, and some retractions. Among the original authors, he wrote, 93 percent were not aware of the duplicate article.
Mr. Garner also wrote an article for Nature, published in January 2008, titled “A Tale of Two Citations,” that reported a similar finding: His computerized search of several million scientific-journal articles revealed thousands of cases in which one article had large similarities with another article.
Both of Mr. Garner’s articles were based on research involving the Medline database and UT Southwestern’s computer-based text-searching tool, eTBLAST. And in both articles, Mr. Garner suggested that the size and severity of this problem continued to be ignored by publishers.
The Nature article warned against both plagiarism by another author and “self plagiarism,” in which the same author or authors present duplicate findings to different journals.
Mr. Garner nevertheless said that his Science magazine report represents a significant advance over his earlier article in Nature. The survey published in Science, while anonymous, prompted 83 internal investigations at scientific journals, which in turn led to 43 cases in which an article was retracted, he said.
That compares to only 17 such retractions last year, which is a more typical annual figure, he said.
Such a case of plagiarism or duplication can have serious medical consequences, Mr. Garner said, as it could lead a doctor who is investigating a patient’s condition to believe a scientific finding is more recent, or perhaps more reliable, because of its repeated appearance in medical journals. —Paul Basken



http://chronicle.com/news/article/6080/plagiarism-in-science-research-is-often-ignored-studies-find-twice

Coming Out of the Style Closet

In my very first post, I described being caught between wanting to be respected as a scientist and wanting to be true to myself. I discussed how I had given up the "girly" things I liked in order to tame down my look and blend in. It wasn't something I did all at once. It was a slow transformation. I stopped wearing bright nail polish, then gave up the flashy jewelry, eventually I only wore heels on special occassions, and finally ended up with a comparatively drab wardrobe.

Recently, I've broken out of my shell. I'm back to being a fashion statement. I wear skirts, and heels, and nail polish to science lab (gasp!). I've heard comments such as, "Are you trying to get a man? Science majors don't dress this good." One of my professors comments about my "clicky" shoes every day she see me. I have decided that it's ok if I stand out. I feel more confident. One of my good friends (who was a large encouragement in bringing back my style) asked, "How does it feel to wake up every morning and be the shit?" It feels fabulous!!! I'm not your average science nerd so why should I pretend to be? I like science and fashion and I'm no longer afraid to admit it. My IQ hasn't changed just because I traded in my fleece jacket for a form fitting blazer.

Popular Science

While discussing a book which was assigned reading for my Evolution course, several of my fellow classmates complained about the book's "fluffiness". The book, Beak of the Finch, is classified in the popular science category and thus is written to target the general population (and by general, I mean someone with a basic understanding of science) . My classmates, who are used to having scientific information delivered to them in a concise and sterile tone, were frustrated by the anecdotes, adjectives, metaphors, and other such creative content contained in the text. I can sympathize with their frustration. Scientific minds are different. I know, I have one. We want facts and data - and we don't want to know how you feel about the data. Despite this, I still appreciate - and dare I say enjoy - such works of popular science. Come on, how many of us really find journal articles to be exciting reads? Do you sit on the edge of your chair just dying to find out what happens in the methods section? Do you stay up late because you just cannot put down that stack of articles from PNAS?



Well -written works of popular science are both important for scientists and non-scientists alike. Besides pumping life into material that is mostly described in dry, uncreative ways, popular science texts bridge the gap between scientists and everyone else. Why is this important? So many reasons!!!

For the non-scientists:
Science is very much a part of your life. Popular science books can help you make educated decisions about the medication you take, the car you drive, and the food you buy, to name a few things. These books are informative BUT fun to read. And, you don't have to sit through any science classes to get the information.

For the scientists:
First of all, if you would rather read a journal article...... seek help. You need some variety in your life. It's ok to have fun. Stop being such a tight arse.
Second of all, being able to communicate science in a way that non-scientists can understand is a crucial skill. Unfortunately, many of you SUCK at it. Why is it important? Because there are plenty of non-science types that are making critical decisions about science. How do we expect people to make informed decisions about global warming, stem cell research, immunizing their children, and alternative energy if they don't understand the basic science behind these topics? How do we expect people to stop thinking that evolution is atheism if we can't explain the science of evolution to them in a way they can comprehend? Popular science books can be fun to read, but they can also help us learn how to talk about our research in a way that won't make people fall asleep. I'm not saying that you should dumb down your work. I'm not saying that I want my lab reports to be works of creative writing or that peer-reviewed journals should start publishing cartoons and poetry. What I'm saying is that as scientists we have a responsibility to communicate with the public. Do we really trust FOX news and CNN to accurately pass along our findings? I sure don't.

This discussion has made me remember what I am really passionate about. I was starting to feel quite defeated but now I remember that there is a special niche for me. I'm the girl in the middle. I'm not a science genius but I have the ability to critically analyze scientific information and put it into my own words. I enjoy translating science. I enjoy bringing spark into what others may see as dull.

Where Did my Dreams Go?

It's been a while. Yes, it's been over 8 months since I've posted a blog entry. I was just reading my last entry and it made me sad. I sound like such a go-getter in that post. I sound determined to not give-up. A part of me misses that confidence and determination and another, more cynical part of me, wonders if I was just fooling myself. Was I just chasing wild dreams? Were my goals just delusions of grandeur? Had I really found my passion, my niche, my place in the world? I wish I knew. But more importantly, I wish I had some dreams and goals today, whether they be unrealistic or not. I have always loved the quote by Langston Hughes: "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams dies, life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly." While my dreams and goals have changed throughout my life, I have always had them. They kept me going. They gave me a reason to wake up in the morning. They gave me hope. Now, for the first time since I can remember, I feel dreamless. I feel like I'm living day by day, just hoping to pass my classes and pay my bills. I know I want a college degree (in anything at this point), but I have no idea what I want to do with it. I don't have any direction and it's driving me insane. Am I still a sassy scientist? I don't know. I don't know if the D's and F's that are on my transcript from last year are a reflection of my ability or a reflection of not trying hard enough or just a reflection of a bad year. I don't know if changing my major to biology (yes, it's true, Chemistrina has left chemistry) was giving up or running away or just plain laziness. I know that I think my classes are boring and finding the motivation to pull myself through them has been excruciating. I know that I have turned into the student who skims the chapter summaries right before the exams in hopes of just getting a C. I know that I have become the student who misses classes and often comes late. I know that I can't seem to turn in assignments on time. I know that I usually draw pictures instead of taking notes in class and that time seems to tick by so very slowly during lectures that I can barely stand it. So, there you have it, it has taken me months to gather up the courage to put this out here. I know all this is happening but I don't know why. I've never, until now, been this kind of person. In this detached phase I am experiencing, I haven't felt that I had much to say about my journey as an aspiring scientist, hence the 8 months of silence.



On a happier note, my lack of studying has provided me with the time to go to the gym 5 times a week, watch plenty of enertaining TV sitcoms, and read books that are not in any sense academic. I also get much more sleep since I've thrown in the towel when it comes to staying up half the night studying.



As with most everything in life, nobody can really help me but myself. So, I keep on skating by, hoping that tomorrow I will suddenly come up with a brilliant plan for my future. It turns out that Google does not provide useful answers when you search for such things as, "What should I do with my life?" and "How do I find a dream?" As I wait for Google's search engine to improve, at least I am increasing my muscle mass and becoming knowledgable in TV trivia.