Using a 3D Printer in an Upper Division Science Course

For a while I had been thinking about utilizing a 3D printer in my upper division science courses.  Unfortunately, I was having a hard time thinking of a way to integrate it into biology-related courses.  So the last time I taught Virology I decided to work it in as a learning tool over the course of the semester.  What I did was to create an end of the semester project where students had to recreate a three-dimensional model of a known virion.  I felt this would be a good way for them to actually think about all the different components in a virion and their spatial relationships.

Students had to first find a virus that had a reported structure beyond a simple conceptual drawing and then to start drafting it.  As I discovered early on in coming up with the assignment was that I saw the challenge was not the printing itself but in knowing and using the 3D design software.  I’m at a low budget institution so I needed to find something inexpensive and/or free and relatively simple to use.  I decided on TinkerCAD because it was web-based (no big IT issue to get installed or purchased), it had learning modules, and a repository of user generated 3D models for you to “tinker” with.  So since I knew not all students would be on the same page in technological know-how I required them to do several of the training modules that would be just sufficient to make their own model.  I personally thought the training modules were, for the most part, pretty good – there were a few issues in some of them where the instructions were a little too vague.

I gave my students a timeline to complete the training and to start working on their actual virion models.  As customary with students a majority procrastinated with their designs and complained a bit that it “took them much longer than they expected to complete them” even though I advised them multiple times that this would take some time and effort to work on.  That is why I gave them the whole semester to work on them.

DNA and Bacteriophage models

I had originally planned on printing all models but after doing several test prints I realized that with just one printer that would take an unusually long time.  So I decided to print the best model from the class and let that student keep it.

For our printer we purchased a very affordable 3D printer that was designed for simple hobbyists and educational uses – the FlashForge Finder.  I picked it based on reviews suggesting it was a good quality beginner printer with easy simple to use features.  There were a few other models that were considered that looked to be just as good but it just so happens this one was picked.  I have discovered that in addition to having to understand the design software is that there is a whole other world in understanding and refining the actual printing process.  This part is above and beyond what I would have my students do.  So a student worker and myself played around with these features and settings.  Pretty much it comes down to that the actual printing process may need to be tweaked a bit to get optimally printed models.

This experience has also opened the option for us to fabricate our own biology related “tools” and models.  My student worker had played around with creating a mitochondria respiration chamber for our biochemistry lab.  There is potentially a lot of utility to come from a 3D printer that isn’t terribly complicated to learn or work on.  It just requires a little time, patience, and some ideas.

 

Separating Dilbert From Science

On February 2nd, Dilbert creator Scott Adams, posted a blog about Science’s Biggest Fail.  His opening line was the following:

“What’s is science’s biggest fail of all time?  I nominate everything about diet and fitness.”

Adams describes how science is without credibility and has continually mislead everyone about diets, nutrition, exercise, etc. time after time.  Although he says it is better than the alternative, such as ISIS (?!), it has a credibility issue.

I think the Adams is confusing science, whether it be the methodology or the body of knowledge, with something else that can be describe for lack of a better word as applied science.  Every instance he brings up that science has failed are instances where a science tidbit is marketed, interpreted, communicated, or utilized by a non-science entity (e.g. media, food and drug companies, government programs, etc.).

Yes, scientific claims or theories are subject to falsification, further testing, modification and general scrutiny over time.  If it weren’t we would still think spontaneous generation, alchemy, and astrology are legitimate explanations for the natural world.  When findings or a theory indicate a certain phenomenon we can so it does with a certain level of confidence.  The more evidence in support of said findings/theory the greater the level of confidence until we get to a point where something to the contrary is highly unlikely.  Notice I did not say it becomes fact or law or impossible.  Although not perfect science is our best way describing the natural world.

In a sense science can be best described as a tool.  Depending on how it is used to can be helpful in accomplishing tasks, fixing things that are broken, improving processes, and whatever else we feel we can use it for.  It will not necessarily convince us or dictate how it should be used.  For example, a wrench will not fix a broken sink on its own nor will it give instructions on how it should be used to fix it.  Also, a thumbtack (another type of tool), would, I imagine, be of little use in fixing a sink but the tool itself cannot stop a company from marketing it as an excellent tool to solve plumbing problems.

In other words in all these cases that Adams brings up are all situations that something from science, a potential tool so to speak, is described, used, marketed in a way beyond what the beyond what was actually shown in the science.

Yes, we need to be skeptical of all claims, whether they be science or not.  Being skeptical means that if a certain claim is presented that what evidence is there to support it.  So when the next diet fad comes out, especially if it is contrary to current knowledge, claiming all these health benefits a skeptical person needs to ask about the evidence and be able to separate marketing, creative writing, and anecdote (just to name a few) from the science.

This is no easy job and requires a bit of work on the consumers end.  With access to credible information databases such as wikipedia (the science stuff is pretty good), universities, PubMed, libraries, etc. there is no reason why someone just has to accept a claim and hope for the best.  Unfortunately, most people won’t because, even though extremely rewarding, it is not entertaining and easy.  Nor is there a guarantee that the answer will be crystal clear (which is okay).

Ways to get started can be as simple as following Bill Nye the Science Guy or Neil deGrasse Tyson, reading Science Daily, or even subscribing to IFL Science.

In brief, I don’t think science itself is misleading people but rather it is the case that other groups take something from science and use it in ways that are misleading, intentionally or not.  The more people try to understand how science works the better.  That being said what can people who work in science do make the communication factor much more functional?  Communicate more with the general public by way of general conversations, talks, seminars, blogs (such as this), newspaper articles, books, podcasts, TV shows (Cosmos), tweet or anything else I am leaving out – just do something a little bit more.  Embrace and support more science resources for writers and communicators.  Do citizen science.

Making a simple “scientific” decision to not re-visit a restaurant when N = 1

This past weekend my family and I visited a local restaurant (you can ask me personally if you really want to know the identity of said venue).  Based on our experience we will not be returning.  It is quite common for people to make a decision like this on a single visit.  A question that comes up is whether this decision was a fair decision?  In other words maybe if I give them another chance things will be different.  That someone can’t really make an adequate and thorough decision on the quality of a restaurant based on one visit.

Based on this past experience I argue that one can make a fair decision to not visit a “bad” restaurant with an N = 1.  In science a study with an N = 1 can be problematic because repetition of study subjects and replication of experiments are a strength to science.  But there are cases were replication and repetition are severely limited, difficult, or outright impractical due to costs, ethics, and/or various aspects.  So what does one do to make a justified decision or choice?  Well one gathers as much data and evidence from that N = 1, analyze it, and look at all of it to make a decision.

So what did I observe at this particular restaurant that would make me conclude that a revisit would be more of the same?  For the most part on the surface nothing appeared out of the ordinary – staff was nice and menu looked nice.

Ordering –

I ordered a hamburger and asked for a side order of onion rings (as listed on the menu).  The server said they were out of onion rings – if onion rings are made fresh then they could be out of onions, or flour, or oil OR they use pre-made frozen onion rings.

Receiving food –

Each of our items (there were seven of us) came out one at a time about 2 to 5 minutes apart.  One person’s order was forgotten so it came out 10 minutes after the previous one.

Quality of food –

I won’t talk about flavors of food but will discuss food preparation for this “diner.”  Macaroni and Cheese dish was boxed Mac and Cheese (stuff with powdered cheese – I’ve eaten enough of that stuff as a kid and in college to easily recognize it).  My hamburger was a preformed and cooked patty (perfectly shaped circle patty) and it came with onions.  Someone else had mashed potatoes with gravy (flour is often used to thicken gravy and this gravy was thick).  Three of us had french fries (shouldn’t be any oil issues).  Someone ordered French Toast (the order that was forgotten) and it was the soggiest looking thing I have ever seen.

Can I conclude anything yet?  Well the food is prepared from previously frozen materials and/or instant box kits.  Looks like evidence for minimal cooking skills.  On a bad cooking day I get lazy and make boxed and microwaveable food.  Why would I want to go to a restaurant to have someone else do lazy cooking?  I’m feeling pretty confident that the onion ring problem was because they are frozen and not made there on site.

Bathroom –

Unusually dirty for a restaurant.  Maybe it the staff were to busy with other things considering it was a Friday night.  Well, it wasn’t particularly busy.  Also, one of the staff used the restroom and afterwards did not do anything to signal it needed cleaning.

After dinner dessert?  Yes, but almost a miss.  Three of the meals ordered included dessert.  We had to remind the staff person of this when we were getting ready to leave.

Assessment –

A lot of things were noticed here and much appears to be integral parts of the restaurant – rudimentary cooking practices and mediocre work practices.  These don’t appear to be “one-time only” issues but things that are part of this particular restaurant’s basic principles.  So I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that unless management is changed for this place then I can feel pretty confident that a return visit would be more of the same and there is no reason for me to “give it another chance.”

Belief in the Science Classroom

In the beginning…

I teach a Science and Religion course for our biology department conveniently named “Science, Religion, and Reality.”  This past week a student mentioned that he was surprised to find out that one of his fellow biology majors did not believe in evolution.  That day in class we also watched Richard Dawkins interview of Wendy Wright from the Concerned Women for America activist group.  As Richard Dawkins questioned Ms. Wright throughout the interview it became apparent, at least to me, that what she was really concerned with was with the belief in evolution.

There it was again an issue brought up about a belief of a scientific concept, in this case evolution.  My student had asked what my thoughts were on this other student’s lack of belief in a well-supported scientific theory.  It used to be my knee jerk response would be that I would think that a disbelief in evolution was absurd.  Being a scientist and an educator, however, I find myself being less and less concerned about what a person believes just as long as, at least for science, that they have made an effort to understand the concept and then choose to believe or not to believe in it – but the belief part is up to them.

I have thought about this before but in science courses (and for the most part other college courses) we don’t assess (i.e. test) whether our students believe in any of our concepts but rather we are more concerned with whether they understand it.

Back to Dawkins

During the Wendy Wright interview Richard Dawkins asked her about her scientific training.  Ms. Wright immediately assumed that Dawkins was going to allude to that only “Scientists” can talk about science and that lay folk shouldn’t.  I am not too sure what Dawkins was actually thinking, but what I was thinking that Dawkins was curious as to whether she even understood what the science of evolution is.  Besides the fact that she would NOT recognize any evidence for evolution (what she would define as evidence is totally confusing), the information she would describe of evolution throughout the video was a mash of science jargon, sciency terms (e.g. micro and macroevolution), misconceptions, misinformation, false data, and political ideologies.

It looked like her concern was that if people started to understand evolution then they would therefore believe in evolution which would therefore equate to them establishing ideologies based on evolution.  So the basis for their organizations attack on evolution in the classroom with “teach the controversy” is not really about evolution but about the logical fallacy of A leads to B which leads to C when A does not cause B nor does it cause C.  Another way to think about it is that are we concerned that students will start believing and developing ideologies around Greek mythology if we teach it in the classroom?  Are we concerned that if we teach music appreciation in the classroom that students will believe in music and therefore develop person philosophies and political ideologies based on this?  I hope not.

Understand or do not understand there is no belief (in Yoda voice of course)

We all develop personal beliefs over a range of things throughout our life.  Some of these things are ideas, dreams, philosophies, etc. etc.  In the cases that relate to science (I’m sticking to my comfort zone here) it hurts everyone in the long run to equate learning about something as the same as believing in it.  Believing or not believing could be personal motivating factors for someone in wanting to learn more to understand something but belief itself should not be a requirement of understanding.

Scorpions in Yuma

Arizona Bark Scorpions

Over the past year I have worked on developing a research program involving scorpions in the Yuma area.  The whole idea to pursue this topic was inspired by a student group presentation a few years ago in my biochemistry course.  The group presented on the topic of black widow venom research into looking for components, if any, in the venom that could serve as safe and viable new sources of pesticides for the agriculture industry.  Black widows are pretty much found all through the US so I thought what organism could we study that would be a niche that my undergraduate students could pursue at their own pace, contribute new information to the field, and be somewhat mysterious/exciting.  The scorpion, of course!

UV light on scorpions

Growing up in Arizona we are told early on to watch out for the Arizona Bark scorpion because its sting is dangerous especially for the very young and old.  Based on this presupposition we decided to go out into the desert, grab some scorpions, get venom, and develop an assay.  The great thing about this area of research is that there is so much that can be discovered and determined.  Plus the literature for scorpions in the southwest is pretty limited.  So right off the bat my undergraduates were faced with ways to capture scorpions, house them, and to acquire venom.

Capturing scorpions is actually easier than we thought.  Temperature and a UV light source are the key factors.  They are typically really active at night than in the day – nocturnal.  So on warm nights one can easily go out in the desert and find scorpions left and right – I wouldn’t recommend walking in sandals or other open-toed shoes.  The UV light causes a particular molecule present in their exoskeleton (don’t know what it is but that is another question to study) to fluoresce (i.e. glow).  Now keep in mind that under normal light conditions they are perfectly camouflaged with the ground, so if you switch your UV light to a normal light the scorpion becomes almost impossible to detect.  To grab them we used long oversize tweezers or barbecue tongs and toss them into their own chamber/container.  We found out early on that they are cannibalistic and need to be separated immediately otherwise all the big guys eat or kill all the small guys.

Venom extraction isn’t too difficult once a method has been worked out. One of my student researchers built from scratch a portable venom extraction device (i.e. it shocks the scorpions to get them to readily release their venom).  One of the early things we considered was whether the scorpions needed to be anesthetized to keep them calm and to maintain a safe working area.  In the end we decided it was just simpler and just as safe to tape down their claws and hold their tails with forceps.  It was interestingly later discovered by my students that the device really only worked if the scorpions were sprayed with a saline solution – which provides better conduction of the current from the device.  Questions my students are now looking at optimal rate of venom extractions and how much diet factors into venom production.

giant hairy

Barcoding and identifying scorpions in the area was more challenging than we initially thought.  So most scorpions we were capturing looked like what we thought would be Arizona Bark scorpions (Centruroides sculpturatus or Centruroides exilicauda).  As we discovered quickly the morphologies of the various species in the area are very similar especially if you don’t have a dissecting scope and a lethargic scorpion.  We discovered quickly that the large ones we were getting (greater than 3 or so inches in length) appeared to match up best with Giant Desert Hairy (Hadrurus arizonensis) and possibly desert dune scorpions.  This past year we had issues getting good clean DNA barcoding results.  When we went back and investigated where there might be issues we found out that the paper we got the primers from had sloppily put together their methods area for their PCR (Valdez-Cruz et. al Biochimie 86 (2004) 387-396).  I won’t go into the exact details of the information from that paper other than it was very sloppy and would only have been discovered by a reviewer had they actually BLASTed the PCR primers with the species.

Giant hairy found by co-worker

Resources are there if you know where to look.  So scorpions are well studied but just don’t have the overwhelming literature and resources to start out working on them than compared to other organisms especially model organisms.  The Biology of Scorpions by Gary Polis is an amazing resource.  Unfortunately, Polis died in 2000 and really no one has put together as thorough a resource as he did.  The book itself is out of print and costs about $300 to $700 to purchase a copy.  Fortunately the NAU Cline library had a copy that we were able to borrow.  We did come across a nice on-line resource called The Scorpion Files edited by Jan Rein out of Norway.  This site provides a good database of North American scorpions.  Interestingly enough through The Scorpion Files we came across information suggesting that the Arizona Bark Scorpion is not as lethal as thought due to possible issues with actually identifying the scorpion.  The giant hairy had a higher LD50 than the bark?!  Awesome.

Overall scorpions in Yuma have proved to be a great resource to do scientific research with undergraduate students.  It provides them the opportunity to tackle difficult questions and to make discoveries that no one has reported yet.

One of our venom factories

 

Climate Change, Bill Nye, Hysteria, and Superficial Science Understanding

This past week Bill Nye “The Science Guy” was on CNN’s Crossfire to debate the scare tactics of scientists on anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.  I unfortunately was not able to watch it on CNN and only have access to the short clips CNN has posted – one on those bullying tactics and the other on whether people need to quit eating meat.  I did find out about this through a Facebook posting and have since then read up on summaries of the “debate.”

To start off with I wouldn’t really call this a debate but more of who could yell the loudest over Bill Nye.  It is unfortunate that I can not view the whole thing in its entirety to see what else I am missing but people are only commenting mainly on the first segment and a little on the second one (5 minutes worth of debate?!).  From what I saw it wasn’t much of a debate or discussion.  It was more about Bill Nye needing to defend those “bullying scientists” with their “alarmist” agenda.

Disarming the Weapon of Doubt

Several things are unsettling to me, and I would hope everyone else who has seen it feel the same way.  The main point being – in this day and age why are we debating this?  I mean this is a pretty well established, and albeit new theory.  Why do people still focus on the 3% of “scientists” who disagree with this theory?  Do people forget that we can always find those that disagree with ANY given theory?  If we are really giving credit to those minority of heretic scientists then what about those that disagree with germ theory, nuclear theory, DNA as the hereditary material, heliocentric model, etc.?

Lets step back and re-evaluate how we should regard scientific theories.  In general if we have a decent working theory we keep going with it and do our best to disprove it (yes to disprove – to rule out or minimize confirmation bias).  What we don’t do is say “oops, one little aspect out of a 1000 or so doesn’t make sense.  Therefore lets drop the whole theory and wait until something else comes along.”  If you want to drop a theory you need to have something else to replace it and at that be better.  If it isn’t better then why replace it?

I admit climate science can be a difficult topic to understand and to research.  I struggled for a bit to understand what exactly was going on with global climate change a few years back when I was tasked with giving a lecture on it at San Diego State University a few years back.  Being a true skeptic I was a bit dubious of the claim but could be convinced if the data was concrete.  In the end when I looked at and assessed the science I felt pretty safe in accepting the theory.  So unless something better comes along I will be inclined to accept it – as most people should.

There Needs to be Inequality

Cornelia Dean’s 2009 book Am I Making Myself Clear? helped to clarify why the “debate” is so contested.  She brings up the “fair and balanced” ideal in journalism – in other words there are two sides to every story.  Sure in the matter of public opinion, civil rights, policy, politics, etc. that is true.  In science, however, that is most definitely not the case but journalists typically being not very scientifically literate don’t know that is the case (paraphrasing her explanation).

To put it in a different context as to why “equal time for both sides” can be so ridiculous here is an equivalent analogy.  Imagine having a prime-time debate, covered by all media outlets, between someone having to defend the idea that “Old Glory”/the stars and stripes is the flag of the United States and another person who represents 3% of the population that say the green, white, and red with a Tinochtitlan coat of arms is (most would recognize it as the flag of Mexico).

I would hope most people would find that so much coverage between “two sides” of an unequal factual story would be absolutely mind-boggling.  Unfortunately that is what is happening now.

Forcing Politics and Policy into Science

In reality the real issue is not the science but what to do to try and remedy this situation and as usual certain groups only see absolute solutions – The Free Market or Government Regulation will save the day.  Is this the movie Highlander where “only one can survive.”

So those that value the ideal of the Free Market being the only solution have put all their effort in denying the science rather than presenting the best Free Market solutions compared to government regulations (see Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, etc.).

Geneticist (not the cosmologist) Sean Carroll sums it up nicely in describing the Denialist Strategy:

1. Doubt, directed at the actual science related to the issue.
2. Doubt, directed at the personal motives and integrity of scientists. In this case, it’s not the data that is dubious (as it is in argument #1), it’s the people behind the data.
3. Magnified disagreements among scientists, often credentialed but non-expert people holding a minority opinion fuel unfounded debate.
4. Exaggeration of potential harm of the science in question, this is an unreasonable perception of the risk involved.
5. Personal freedom, an issue that is framed as an infringement on personal freedom (e.g. a child should have the choice of whether or not to learn about evolution)
6. Acceptance of the science in question would repudiate a key philosophical belief.

Check, check, check, check, check, and check.

What Now?

What should be debated are the optimal strategies in combating this human ecological plague and doing something about it ASAP.  This is a big issue because it will affect seriously resources (financial, industrial, and natural).  Affect resources you get strife, mass migrations, etc. – who will handle this?  Talk about expensive (life, monetary).

Seriously, let’s quit the debating of the science (leave it to the scientists), take responsibility/stewardship of the land, and clean up this mess.

 

 

Postscript

I think it funny when people question Bill Nye’s scientific credentials (both sides of the political spectrum) as saying he just has a degree in mechanical engineering and talk elementary science to kids.  Based on his tackling of tough science topics and translating for kids to grasp and understand (which is simply amazing) as well as his interviews discussing the science behind numerous topics it is obvious, at least to this scientist, that Bill Nye knows his science.  He knows it far better (both the body of knowledge and the method) than anybody he has debated.  If only his opponents would put a little more effort into strengthening their science literacy – maybe they should watch his old series.

Bill Nye was able to take a course taught by Carl Sagan at Cornell.  I mean how cool is that?  Very.

Hands on microscopy and Instructables

A few months ago I was introduced to a cool website called sciencedemo.org which is a site dedicated to describing various scientific demonstrations as well as their significance and importance in the classroom.  I am a big fan of demonstrations and love to do them when I can so I perused this site and found a link to a posting called “Mobile Phone Microscopy” (Nov, 1st 2013 posting).  The video (which originates from instructables.com – an amazingly cool site) showed how one could make a simple microscope using a couple of pieces of plexiglass, a laser lens, and a smartphone.

This peaked my curiosity because 1) just about all my students have a smart phone, and 2) this looked to be a cool way to get people access to an affordable microscope.

In thinking about this a bit I thought this would be a great project for my students in my Cellular and Molecular Biology course to make as a great way to conveniently look at life at the cellular level.  To make things even better the cameras on smart phones have excellent resolution and additional magnification that, as a result, can produce some amazing amateur images.

Here are their final versions (took a couple of tries to work out some manufacturing issues):

 

Setup and orientation with a portable light source (LED light)

Smartphone microscope in action

Prototype#2 is a go

After all was said and done I took one of the microscopes over to the nearby pre-school to see if they would like to play with it.  They liked it but it wasn’t too “pre-schooler”-durable.  I think next year I may make a more concerted effort to get more of these made for some of the local elementary /middle schools around.  One issue that may come up may be their policies of students having smartphones.  At the very least this would work for teachers to take around in the field and get images for their students.

Science and Religion (a retrospective rambling)

This past fall I taught a course that I had previously done once before and at that I had co-taught it.  This course – Science, Religion, and Reality – is a tricky course to teach because it involves a bit of understanding scientific concepts but also bringing to the classroom peoples religious beliefs.

The tricky part has to do with discussing the religion aspect.  What do I mean by this?  Well, science in general is setup to welcome criticism to allow for better and improved theories and understanding of nature, so to speak.  While religion is a bit different because people tend to hold a much more closer and personal relationship to their particular belief with very limited cultural encouragement to revisit and criticize various aspects of it in light of new information.  (Strangely enough people are okay with this but would think someone were crazy if they held onto an old scientific claim that has long been discarded for a better theory – think spontaneous generation or blood letting to cure the seriously ill)

A strategy that I employed which I picked up from the colleague, a professor of philosophy, I had previously co-taught the course with is to view scientific/religious aspects in one of several models of interaction: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration (or various permutations from Alister McGrath and Ian Barber).  I found this a great tool to allow people of any religious background (the gnostic theist all the way to the other extreme of the gnostic atheist) to look at various aspects of science and religion on given historical and current topics.  Independent of personal belief as long as students viewed the topics through one of these models (once they understand the model) they were able to present ideas and material pertinent the course.  I would imagine that for some it provided a role-playing like scenario to explore new perspectives where they would otherwise not consider them.  I loved this part of the course.

Because this is officially a science course one thing I think that needs to be worked on is for people to apply or understand certain aspects of science.  I did one exercise where I had broken the students into two groups.  Each group was responsible for describing either Evolution or Creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design), the scientific evidence, and the utility of the given “theory.”  Both groups found material in all areas.  What was unfortunately was that the material the creationism group listed was really scientific – evidence or utility.  The group itself was made up of students from various backgrounds and science preparation so it didn’t seem like an apparent issue of this group was extraordinarily biased.  This suggests a possible weakness in knowing what constitutes scientific evidence and utility.  People would often mix scientific theories together (evolution and the origin of life – two separate areas) as well.

I am not too sure how to remedy this.  This does bring up the issue, in general, that people need to discuss and be exposed to more science daily.  For whatever reason people tend to shy away from tackling and understanding science or scientific issues.

I did find that I probably could have spent over half the course just talking about evolution and the religious pushback which is a huge point of discussion in the US.  It was nice from a faculty perspective that there is so much material to read, watch, and discuss in class.  It is a little frustrating from a scientist perspective there is so little interest in actually understanding evolution.

Note that I did not say believing in evolution.  Belief is a personal decision that people make based on cultural aspects and various other reasons.  People can and should be able to choose to believe whatever they learn in school or elsewhere.  All that ask or want is that people first development a mature understanding of subjects or topics before forming a belief.  I digress.

Back to the course.  When I teach this course again I may add a little more focus on understanding a scientific theory.  I may have them build theories – both good and bad.  And then have them use them.  We’ll see how that goes.

Expectations and Reality of the Dreaming Science Student

I have had many students talk to me about their career ambitions.  A good majority have lofty sights set on medical school (or similar professional school), graduate schools, or something similar that requires a lot of preparation and quantitative academic achievements.

A medical student checking blood pressure using a sphygmomanometer and stethoscope. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is all fine and I wish more students set these goals.  The problem is reality.

First, when it comes to the time to actually complete the application process I have found that many students had set a very naive plan.  For example the typical plan is 1) Complete BS degree, 2) Apply to [Insert Name of School(s)], 3) Interview, 4) Get accepted and attend school,  and 5) Enter profession.  The outline is okay but each step has multiple components and involve preparations that often overlap with the others.

I’ll use the Med school situation as an example.  During 1) (completing courses for degree) a student also needs to look into med school requirements: volunteering? undergraduate research? MCAT preparation and exam? Applications and fees?  Strong letters of recommendations?  What is adequate/competitive enough?

When should these things be completed?  As soon as you can.  If one picks a time in which they want to start said post-graduate program they can work backwards as to when these events should probably be completed.  So if someone wants to start the following fall (we’ll call year 5) after they graduate (assuming a spring graduation) they would probably have needed to do interviews the previous spring (or possibly fall of year 4).  Each in-person interview would have to be financed (i.e. student would be responsible for paying for travel, food, and lodging).  Before interview applications (and fees) would need to be due – probably anywhere from previous fall to summer of 2013 (before year 4 on 4-year plan).

Applications would also need MCAT scores and letters of recommendations.  MCATs would need to be taken no later than the spring of year 3 at the latest with MCAT preparation starting around Fall of year 3.  Letters of recommendations would need to be from courses a student has taken anytime from before applications were due from faculty in courses before year 4 (years 1, 2, and 3).  Oops, did you make sure to do well enough in a your courses and were those faculty members able to know you well enough to vouch for your potential success in a medical school?  Did you excel in all your classes?  Did you volunteer somewhere and do something more engaging than just showing up whether it be occasionally or studiously?

Given all that was mentioned above (which isn’t really everything but just some things) leads to the next part.

Second, realistic preparation and assessment of their actual skills.  Some people will talk of their dreams but ignore fact that they can’t even get past the start line because they have mediocre academic performances.  Whether it be because they were nurtured early on that they can do anything they really want to if they really wish hard enough (as Ralph put it in Wreck-It Ralph) or for whatever reason many students have a high sense of accomplishment with little qualitative evidence of it.  For example, a student getting just one C in a college course as acceptable.  Or getting into mindsets where poor performance in a course is because of “issues” with the professor or the need for point begging (“…. you see due to this misc. technicality I feel I deserve this 1 point on a 1000 point exam.”  I exaggerate but not by much.)

IMG_4862 – Wreck-It Ralph booth (Photo credit: Anime Nut)

The situation is similar with graduate school with some differences of course (GRE and much more undergraduate research).

My intent is not to be negative here but to get students (or people in similar situations) to do their best.  Also, to stay in the mentality that things can always be better or improved upon.  Just because someone got a C in a class isn’t the end of the world but if they are really serious they would be planning on retaking that class with a different plan to successfully complete it with a better grade.  Or maybe a student earned a 90% on an exam (a typical minimum for an A).  What they should be doing is prepping themselves to learn the material to a higher degree so that if the situation were repeated they would earn a 100%.

To do well, whether that be to earn exceptional grades or to get excellent references (for those wanting to enter the job market immediately – did you see that one coming?), involves a lot of work and a unique mindset.  Schooling becomes your obsession, your love/spouse, your favorite hobby, or (as described in a recent article) that bad boyfriend/girlfriend that your family/friends don’t approve of you spending so much time with.

I don’t think you can do it.  No matter how hard you try.  Now prove me wrong.

Skeptical Owl (Photo credit: mgerskup)

How to approach a college-level science course…

It is the beginning of the fall and colleges and universities around the country are bustling with activity, students, and courses.  I’ve noticed that something interesting in students that do well in science courses and those that don’t.   Many of the students who struggle come to see me mid-way (or even worse at the end) of a course for suggestions or strategies on how they can improve their grade.  Technically, yes they could in theory improve (sometimes), but in reality I have yet to see anyone be able to turn it around.  I think this is because they have already shot themselves in the foot in a foot race and don’t realize it.

Students Walking (Photo credit: University of Denver)

The time to improve in a course as weird as this sounds is at the beginning; maybe even before the start of classes.  To do well in a class students need to go in ready to do whatever the professor suggests they do to succeed in the class and should look forward to doing it.  If a professor has a reading list and problems to work on then that student needs to convince themselves that they can’t wait to start on it and do so.  To take pleasure in studying and challenging their mental abilities.

When I look back at my undergraduate experience I notice that the classes that I went in excited and eager to take I did well in regardless of their difficulty.  Those that I was not so eager to take or be I did not do as well in.  It wasn’t an easy process to do well but it worked.  What I found that I had to do was some psychology on my part.  I sometimes had to convince myself beforehand that I wanted to like this class and looked forward to the work and challenge almost masochistically.

I think the biggest challenge to convincing myself and why many students in general find science courses difficult is because there is no (or very little) cultural excitement in science.  Society seems to place science (and math) as things you have to do in school and should stop thinking about once you finish schooling.  Why aren’t people still encouraged to stay curious about science after school?

Bill Nye the Science Guy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Is there anything to keep people excited about science in popular culture?  The first thing that comes to mind is Bill Nye the Science Guy.  I watched this show all the time as a kid and still love watching it as an adult.  It is what science should be for all: fun, engaging, and thoughtful.  I vaguely remember also watching Mr. Wizard re-runs on Nickolodeon.  I also watched Beakman’s World which was fun, but I saw it as a low end Bill Nye show (sorry I hope I don’t offend anyone).  It too had great content but it wasn’t my cup of tea.  For math I would watch Square One TV on PBS which was the most addictive TV show to watch that you so happen to learn about many math concepts.

TV (or pop. media in general) seems to be a commonality for reaching the masses.  So what is available now especially for an adult audience (at least older than 14 years old)?  PBS has Nature and Nova but they aren’t exactly shows that bring the fun back.  They are great and informative but can be dry for most people.  There are a variety of shows on cable channels most notably MythBusters.  What about the main networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox?  The Big Bang Theory kind of comes close in that it is a sitcom that revolves around scientists as the main characters.  I would have to say that the science that is on there is well researched and fairly accurate.  They must employ some actual science consultants.   A rarity in hollywood it would seem.

List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 2) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are plenty of other internet sources of science shows.  But given that there is so much out there what should you follow?  I personally love StarTalk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Dr. at the November 29, 2005 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is a radio talk show (or video on the Nerdist channel) that discusses some great science concepts with guests who are science experts, comedians and/or other entertainers.

So what is the take home message?  Give science a chance outside of school and schooling.  In doing so your science classes which explain a lot of these fundamentals will be more rewarding and engaging.