The discussion we had in our last class of the term, in which we talked about how science articles are perceived and how science is taught in high school, it really made me think about the education that I received prior to coming to UBC. Like a lot of people in class reiterated, I felt like I knew everything there was to know about science when I was in high school. I mastered the material that was presented to me in school and there was never a notion that I needed to know more than that. I never felt like I only knew a small portion of what there is to know in the world. Maybe the education board sets it up this way so that students don’t feel too overwhelmed with their studies when they are so young. But I really think it would be more beneficial if starting in grade 10, that students are taught that there is so much unknown in science and that this unknown should really be embraced. Students should learn from a earlier point to look at information critically, rather than the memorize and regurgitate information sort of education I remember from high school. I think this would go a long way to address the pure shock that some university students like me go though when starting university for the first time. It was a shift in thinking and it took me a long time to change my habits. I think it’s something that the Vancouver School Board really needs to look at in order to provide a more complete education for students. I think it would be much more captivating for students as well. Maybe we would have more researchers if we change our ideas about how to teach science from an early age.

I read the article that was posted on the BIOL 463 facebook page about Biomed Central and their fabricated peer reviews scandal, if it can be called a scandal. It’s really disappointing to think that these kind of things happen in science and there seems to be a lot of these kind of things happening over the last decade. This might be a very naïve viewpoint but I always thought that science should uphold integrity; I didn’t think or I didn’t have reason to think there would be any fabrication, lying, or cheating in science. Starting my third year in UBC, I realized that is not true. People, when they feel desperate enough, will do anything. It’s quite sad actually, especially the situations where people will fabricate their data so that their paper logically flows and so it can be published more quickly. Maybe I’m wrong but it does seem like these things happen because there is so much pressure to get papers out or to publish journals on time (so fabricated reviews are required). People are worried that if they don’t publish more papers, they won’t receive a post-doc position. If they don’t publish more papers after that, they may not get the chance to run their own lab. I think part of the pressure arises from the lack of funding, which I think is unfortunate. I really hope that the funding issues that researchers are having nowadays is stemmed soon or I really do think these mini-scandals will occur at much higher frequencies. I really hope funding improves so that research can continue in all fields uninhibited and people aren’t pressured to fabricate anything.

I don’t know if this could be considered a valuable scientific resource but the “I f**** love science” website is something that I really enjoy. I am not sure but it seems like the website’s main goal is to make scientific topics more accessible and mainsteam so non-scientists can enjoy and talk about the things that we do. It seems like the website is geared for traditional non-scientists but I really enjoy it. Sometimes there are topics presented on the website  in fields that I have never had experience in and the simple explanations the website provides is really helpful. I think they do a great job in making science more communicable, which is something Bill Nye has been working on forever. They also do a great job in sparking discussion or bringing topics to light that might otherwise never get the attention it deserves. I am often impressed by how novel the topic presented is and how I’m learning something new from it all the time. One problem is that they do tend to focus on animal biology too much; I know there are many other topics in science that can be just as interesting. But overall, I think the website does a great job and it’s a great idea to share science through social media platforms because that seems to be where our future is heading,

As a human being, I understand that the idea of using animals to run scientific research seems cruel. It’s probably even worse for a humanitarian to see the clinical efficiency with which some scientists sacrifice animals for their research. From that perspective, I can see why people are so against the use of animals in research. I feel like people believe that researchers are cold-hearted and don’t care about the animals that they are cruelly sacrificing. But that’s not the case at all. I think every scientist feels bad about it; if they didn’t then they wouldn’t have the need to establish ethical protocols for sacrificing animals. We take care to make sure that the animal feels as little pain as possible. We don’t want them to suffer. Researchers, more than anyone else, understand the importance of that animal’s life in my opinion. Scientists know that the animal’s sacrifice may mean an advancement in science, or a breakthrough that makes peoples’ lives better. If there was a way to do this without sacrificing animals, then researchers would gladly do it. I think researchers would gladly jump on that kind of chance. But since that is just not possible as of today, then researchers have to do what is necessary and sacrifice the lives of some animals for the improvement in science/academics and other areas as well. I know of a researcher personally who sacrifices a lot of mice for her research and she lights a incense stick in her office after the sacking. For her it’s a way to show respect for the lives lost. So researchers do care and if there was a better way to go about this without sacrificing animals, I think we would have employed it by now.

We were asked to look at a timeline that laid out the history of the land that UBC sits on and relate it to the history of biology. I looked at the timeline and some of the years really jumped out at me. 1914, for example. 1914 was the year UBC construction began. In high school, we are taught that 1914 is when WWI starts, an events that displays human nature at its worst. It’s actually amazing to think that 3 years prior in 1911, Thomas Hunt Morgan described that genes are arranged on a chromosome. We never look back at history but it’s really cool to think that more than a 100 years ago this idea came to light. And so much has been discovered since then. Thomas Hunt Morgan can be considered a pioneer and to think his discoveries came around the same time as WWI. I think it’s a perfect example of how much positivity and negativity exists within the human potential.

In 1937, Hans Krebs discovered the citric acid cycle, something that is an inherent part of our cellular physiology. Two years later, WWII broke out, the worst display of human nature known in history. It’s just really amazing to think that around the time that human history is going through the worst wars ever known, there is advancement being made in other areas. Some advancements were bad but most of them has made a positive impact on our lives somehow or another. It’s just really interesting to look at it from that perspective.

The group of the exam was interesting because on the one hand, I learned something new both in terms of factual knowledge and working in tandem with others. On the other hand, I also learned that I was wrong on a lot of questions and I lost marks. I think there is a lot to learn from the group portion. It really is a great learning moment, particularly if you are at odds with the other members of the group. As you defend the position of why you think your answer is more applicable than another suggested answer to a question, the concepts and ideas that you are trying to communicate become more engrained into your mind. I think that is really great. My answers also greatly improved in the group portion because I saw how other people perceive the same question that I had; you learn to think about questions from different angles. Overall, I think group activities/exams are a good idea. I know it’s been in development for several years. I remember going through BIOL 112 with group activities. I think it’s something that UBC needs to look at and focus more attention on. I really think it can improve the amount of information students absorb during their time at UBC.