Our lecture in week 2 approached ‘Scientific Writing Literacy’. As scientists, it is essential to develop an appropriate writing skill set to communicate with the greater scientific community. Communication is absolutely essential in this field where everything is so dynamic i.e. constantly changing.
I am no stranger to the dynamic nature of research.
Having had a keen interest in all things science from a young age (an interest has prompted me to work towards a career in this field) I was aware of how scientific knowledge can advance over the course of the years.
For instance in the late 1920s, Frederick Griffith conducted his experiments confirming DNA to be the genetic material of cells, as opposed to protein. Then, a mere 20 years later, Watson and Crick had presented their ground-breaking discovery for the structure of DNA. This snowballed into further experiments that led to the birth of biotechnology as a field, opening a whole new frontier in science.
The above series of events have interested me mainly because of their effect on the medical field. Scientists who pioneered biotechnology communicated their findings to the medical board via scientific communication, who in turn registered this information and formulated improved techniques based on the new knowledge that could be used to treat patients. The communication between the two parties was crucial.
The inclusion of biotechnology techniques in medicine has led to an improvement in healthcare.
Before such discoveries were made, diabetic patients needed to rely on extracted insulin from bovines or external sources, leading to inappropriate flaring of the immune system – allergies and immunosuppression (that by itself, brought with it a tidal wave of diseases). Now, diabetic patients can be safety treated with genetically engineered insulin.
Insulin is from long list of synthetically made hormones that can be used in therapy. The making of such hormones using biotechnology has led to the management of diseases like diabetes, hyperthyroidism, growth hormone discrepancies etc.
The lecture reinforced the ideas I had about scientific literature. We discussed the dynamic nature of research and the importance of communication. We were reminded to be careful about the issue of plagiarism.
The lecture introduced a slightly different angle to the research field:
Scientists often get restless at their inability to fully solve a particular question that one question answered leads to more questions raised. But this is the essence of research.
As put eloquently by our lecturer Research isn’t about looking for answers, it’s about looking for questions.
Now, this was a whole new direction of thinking that I hadn’t thought of. Maybe by adopting this theory to future researches, might be able to keep the frustration that comes with concluding papers are bay.
An example would be the research that looks into finding a cure for disease like cancer and HIV. I understand that such a task cannot be underestimated- that many unforeseen roadblocks occur down this path. But by applying the psychology of approaching research with an expectation to encounter more questions, we can look past these road blocks and start afresh on new questions.
But I can always reassure myself with this- if I dig a hole, maybe someone else will find a seed. Then another person can plant it, another can water it. Somewhere down the line, the fruit can be enjoyed by many. (This is a hypothetical situation where everyone forgot how farming worked)
REFLECTIONS ON PATHOLOGY 