Comment on "The Top 10 Worst Things About Working in a Lab"

I recently saw an article on the Science Careers website called "The Top 10 Worst Things About Working in a Lab", written by Adam Ruben. Ruben is a very talented writer and has done a great job with this article; it's both amusing and informative! Here's the link: 

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_01_27/caredit.a1200012

I thought I would comment on a few of the "Top 10" that Ruben has discussed in his article:

"10. Your non-scientist friends don’t understand what you do."

All scientists have to agree about this one: there is so much to investigate and so many questions to answer when working in a lab, which means that your project should be extremely narrow and specific; however, this also means that only you and a few other scientists will understand what the project is! Even when two scientists from completely different fields have a conversation, they need to start out with some basic explanations about their research before getting into a more complicated discussion. In any case, even if your non-scientist friends and family members do not understand what you are studying, that doesn't mean they cannot appreciate the work that you do or even understand a basic explanation of your research. I think it is actually quite crucial that scientists learn to explain their research so that non-scientists can understand, as well! Even just practicing how to describe your work in one sentence is a challenging but rewarding experience. It's also important to realize that if your research is not going to immediately solve some human disease, then it's necessary to explain why your work is still relevant. However, I believe that, as a biologist, understanding the complexity of all living things is extremely relevant to begin with!

"7. Sometimes experiments fail for a reason. Sometimes experiments fail for no reason."

It's definitely hard for a non-scientist to understand that things just don't work, and you simply don't know why! Since we are constantly performing experiments with many different variables that could account for something "not working", and we don't have the privilege of being able to see all of these variables with the naked eye, troubleshooting can be extremely time-consuming and arduous. However, this can help explain why repeating experiments multiple times is so crucial, simply because something could work and then not work and then work again, so you need to know if a result is actually "real"! An optimistic point of view would also be that even if you get a negative result when expecting a positive one, this could still be an important finding! The difference between hypothesis- and exploratory-driven science lies within this logic, as well.

"6. Your schedule is dictated by intangible things."

Scientists never have had and never will have a regular 9 to 5 job - on a daily basis, we are not dealing with other people who work from 9 to 5; we are dealing with things that need to incubate for 6 hours or timecourses that need to be examined every 3 hours, which means that a normal work schedule is not likely!

Science in the Movies

As both a scientist and an avid movie-goer, I always feel the need to comment on how movies portray scientists or discuss scientific issues in general. Although I never read any of the comics, I have enjoyed watching many of the recent movies that have been adapted from Marvel and DC Comics, and I am always amused by their "take" on science:

1. For some reason, scientists are always trying to destroy the world, and that's why we need superheroes to save the world; was every scientist tormented in school for being "nerdy", which is why they now hate all of humanity?
2. Scientists are either extremely attractive or extremely unattractive; there's no in-between. One example is Peter Sarsgaard's character in "Green Lantern" - the receding hairline, huge forehead and bushy eyebrows really does the trick.
3. Scientists always wear white lab coats all the time, even when they aren't doing science.
4. Scientists are extremely smart, but somehow this intelligence is too much for their own good. Better yet, they are extremely smart building whatever they are building until it is time to show off the new invention, and then somehow everything goes completely wrong and their intelligence is no longer useful to solve the problem - only a superhero can save the day (like Dr. Octavius from "Spiderman")
5. In terms of the accuracy of scientific concepts, we can all agree that this is not the main concern for the plot of any of these films. However, in "X-Men", for example, I still think it's worth pointing out that an individual human cannot immediately evolve, only a population can evolve over time, and that a mutation is not necessarily a bad thing (and a mutation would never result in something not relevant to human evolution, like the ability to bend metals)

Important Scientific Issues of Today

Oftentimes when looking at the science section of The New York Times, I wonder why some scientific discoveries are chosen to be discussed, while others are simply deemed less interesting for the average reader? This has a lot to do with the fact that there may be discrepancies between what a non-scientist and a scientist think are the most crucial issues that scientists should be investigating. As it usually takes such a long time for a discovery in the lab to be translated into a "real-world" application, any kind of scientific research that in fact sounds immediately relevant (and would be more likely to be mentioned by a politician running for office, for example) is automatically more appealing for someone reading the Science Times. I have no qualms about this; I simply find it interesting to think about what might be considered as an interesting science story to casually read about in the newspaper, and I have made a list below (in no particular order):

1. Alternative energy (solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, etc - the infamous debate about not relying on oil is still a pertinent issue)
2. Global warming and weather patterns (along with this is natural disasters and their aftermaths - it's really no longer feasible to think that global warming is just a "myth" that scientists "made up")
3. Any kind of major physics discovery (like discovering new subatomic particles - finding the smallest particles of matter is just simply awesome!)
4. Any kind of major astronomy discovery (like discoveries about new planets, stars, or solar systems - once again, it is just simply awesome to understand how big the universe really is! Work to show that there could be life on other planets also puts everything in perspective, as well)
5. Pathogenic viruses and bacteria (and fear of their worldwide spread - especially those that are resistant to vaccines and antibiotics)
6. Any new archaeological discoveries that shed light on human evolution (there is a never-ending curiosity to investigate who was around before Homo sapiens and why they went extinct!)
7. New theories about the evolution of animal behavior (everyone loves a good story about how other animals are similar to - or very different from - us, especially in terms of neurological function)
8. Any kind of quirky story about a rare animal species that somehow provides major insight into how humans function, as we tend to forget that we are animals, too (and especially if this species is endangered or affected by damage to our ecosystems)
9. Progress (or lack of progress) in solving how to cure major diseases so we can all live longer, healthier lives (and how much genetics versus the environment - nature versus nurture - contributes to these diseases)
10. Any report of new collaborations being made in the fields of math, science and engineering research (some may say that the best discoveries are made from the most unexpected collaborations!)