Monday, January 29, 2007
Name Change
I felt like there were too many science/medical blogs that started with "Musings of..." so I decided to think of something a little more original. I'm going with a term I learned back in Intro Bio, called "hybrid vigor", which refers to "increased strength of different characteristics in hybrids; the possibility to obtain a "better" individual by combining the virtues of its parents." I like this term because I am a mix of two disparate parental cultures and moreover, a physician-scientist is by definition a hybrid creature. Thanks to Blogger for making the transition so easy!
Friday, January 19, 2007
How to blow up a satellite
I caught this article from Nature (Satellite kill creates space hazard) about a recent mission by the Chinese space agency to destroy one of its own defunct satellites in order to test anti-satellite missile technology. While they were able to destroy the satellite, scientists worry the shrapnel generated from the blast could pose a dangerous threat for other orbiting objects, including their own functional satellites.
I think the people at NASA and the Chinese equivalent have been watching too much Star Trek. The solution is pretty easy. Why not just incapacitate it by pointing it in the wrong direction, hijack it, or, even better, use a "soft" modality like insta-foam to render it useless? Like the article says, all you need is a basic guidance system with a digital camera. When the missile comes close, it shoots out its foam which covers the satellite of choice and then solidifies. Kind of like a cosmic foam party (see right). Sounds too low-tech? Just, check out the Mars Landers and their airbags they used to "crash" onto the surface of the Red Planet.
I think the people at NASA and the Chinese equivalent have been watching too much Star Trek. The solution is pretty easy. Why not just incapacitate it by pointing it in the wrong direction, hijack it, or, even better, use a "soft" modality like insta-foam to render it useless? Like the article says, all you need is a basic guidance system with a digital camera. When the missile comes close, it shoots out its foam which covers the satellite of choice and then solidifies. Kind of like a cosmic foam party (see right). Sounds too low-tech? Just, check out the Mars Landers and their airbags they used to "crash" onto the surface of the Red Planet.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Saban Leaves the Dolphins for 'Bama
Another public figure lies to the public. Nick Saban, now the former head coach of the Miami Dolphins, has left his post to assume the head coaching job at the University of Alabama.
The reasons I'm writing about this are the following: 1) To highlight the fact that you can not always believe what people say (including scientists/physicians/hacks) regardless of their position and 2) to demonstrate discrepancies in journalism today (which bears impact on science and medicine).
First, that for the weeks leading up to Saban's decision to leave the Dolphins, he was adamantly denying that he had any interest in Alabama. This was after he had made the mistake to say that he had "given it some consideration." He did such a good job of looking right into the camera and saying no, that even I started to believe him. Silly me. Turns out he was just deflecting attention so as to not upset his Miami employers and employees. He joins the line up of yet another public figure who, when necessary, will lie to cover his own ass.
Which brings me to my next point and perhaps the most illuminating topic, which is the press coverage surrounding Saban's departure. I was blown away by the constant questioning and skepticism about Saban's feelings since it was first announced. Poor Saban couldn't get away from the lines of questioning and the periodicals written about his interest in Alabama. Even more shocking was the cover story of ESPN.com when Saban officially announced his decision, titled "Liar Liar" by Pat Forde.
Where did these reporters come from!? Where was the same intense scrutiny in the lead up to the war in Iraq? Why have so few journalists and journalism organizations been so explicit in their disbelief and condemnation of President Bush and his abomination of a invasion based on WMD? I wonder if sports writers have more "cojones" to call someone out when they screw up or if the press turns in their journalistic license when they enter the White House press room. I really think that this is an example of the disparity that exists between our coverage of the government and all other affairs (even celeb gossip can be more scathing than the latest review of our politicians).
I hope that the journalists covering the war and politics take a page from their own print, the sports page that is, to be more critical and dogged in their reporting. Moreover, I hope they start to investigate the other areas in which this administration has gone awry, including redirecting funding away from scientific research towards defense spending. This already happened before the President committed us to a war that is costing us billions of dollars on a strained economy. Keep in mind that since Nixon declared his "War on Cancer" campaign, the US has spent roughly $200 billion on cancer research, which is less than we have already spent on the current war, with no end in sight and escalating violence. I say that again: more for war in three years than over thirty years on cancer. We now spend about $5 billion a year on cancer research, which is about the amount spent on a single month in Iraq. Think of all the milestone breakthroughs in apoptosis, angiogenesis, chemotherapy, etc. that we have generated from the money we have spent on research. That money is now being spent on trying to subdue a civil war.
So, yeah, our journalists (and politicians), who are supposed to represent the voice of the people really dropped the ball on this one big time.
The reasons I'm writing about this are the following: 1) To highlight the fact that you can not always believe what people say (including scientists/physicians/hacks) regardless of their position and 2) to demonstrate discrepancies in journalism today (which bears impact on science and medicine).
First, that for the weeks leading up to Saban's decision to leave the Dolphins, he was adamantly denying that he had any interest in Alabama. This was after he had made the mistake to say that he had "given it some consideration." He did such a good job of looking right into the camera and saying no, that even I started to believe him. Silly me. Turns out he was just deflecting attention so as to not upset his Miami employers and employees. He joins the line up of yet another public figure who, when necessary, will lie to cover his own ass.
Which brings me to my next point and perhaps the most illuminating topic, which is the press coverage surrounding Saban's departure. I was blown away by the constant questioning and skepticism about Saban's feelings since it was first announced. Poor Saban couldn't get away from the lines of questioning and the periodicals written about his interest in Alabama. Even more shocking was the cover story of ESPN.com when Saban officially announced his decision, titled "Liar Liar" by Pat Forde.
Where did these reporters come from!? Where was the same intense scrutiny in the lead up to the war in Iraq? Why have so few journalists and journalism organizations been so explicit in their disbelief and condemnation of President Bush and his abomination of a invasion based on WMD? I wonder if sports writers have more "cojones" to call someone out when they screw up or if the press turns in their journalistic license when they enter the White House press room. I really think that this is an example of the disparity that exists between our coverage of the government and all other affairs (even celeb gossip can be more scathing than the latest review of our politicians).
I hope that the journalists covering the war and politics take a page from their own print, the sports page that is, to be more critical and dogged in their reporting. Moreover, I hope they start to investigate the other areas in which this administration has gone awry, including redirecting funding away from scientific research towards defense spending. This already happened before the President committed us to a war that is costing us billions of dollars on a strained economy. Keep in mind that since Nixon declared his "War on Cancer" campaign, the US has spent roughly $200 billion on cancer research, which is less than we have already spent on the current war, with no end in sight and escalating violence. I say that again: more for war in three years than over thirty years on cancer. We now spend about $5 billion a year on cancer research, which is about the amount spent on a single month in Iraq. Think of all the milestone breakthroughs in apoptosis, angiogenesis, chemotherapy, etc. that we have generated from the money we have spent on research. That money is now being spent on trying to subdue a civil war.
So, yeah, our journalists (and politicians), who are supposed to represent the voice of the people really dropped the ball on this one big time.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Bad Science: Fated to Get Cancer?
There was a recent article that came out of Cancer Research UK, a charity dedicated to raising awareness about cancer prevention titled "More than a quarter of Britons think cancer is a matter of fate," which was then reported on by they could do anything to reduce their risk of cancer or whether getting the disease was just fate." Overall, they report, 23% of the population believe it is a matter of fate and that their lifestyle choices did not play a role in determining whether or not they get cancer.
I noticed that this story has gotten picked up by a number of members of the medical-science blogosphere and it seems as though there are a number of differing opinions about the interpretation of this study. If there is confusion amongst us, then I'm certain that there is even more confusion among the general public about what exactly this all means. Here, I would like to offer some of my own thoughts on the matter and how it illustrates a number of key points that I often see arising in the field and how it can lead to disagreement.
1) Source: Before we even get to the results of the survey, and even before we make conclusions, we have to examine the source of the information. As a charity driven by donations from people concerned about cancer, I doubt that Cancer Research UK is an unbiased arbiter in the information collection business. I am not surprised that the survey they conduct results in data that supports the need for their own organization. This is why polling services are used by a majority of interests groups, so that they can not be blamed for influencing the results.
Moreover, the original source is a press release and the coverage is based upon the scant information provided in it. This brings up two important faults: a) we do not have access to the original data and methods (see below) and that there was no oversight in the way the survey was conducted (no peer-review) and b) the information has been processed by two people who probably have very little experience in reporting scientific results. I don't know about you, but most of the humanities majors I knew in college loathed their science work [the rant on teaching science in college will be saved for a later time] and would probably have a hard time fairly making conclusions about a report that has an unclear experimental method (again, see below).
2) Experimental Design: What was the exact question posed to Brits in this study? We don't have this information. The wording of such surveys is extremely important, especially when the wording can influence the responses of the participants. Without the wording, we can not know for sure if this report was clear and unbiased. For this and the reasons above, I usually don't read these kinds of report expecting to learn something.
3) Results are open to interpretation: In perhaps my biggest gripe about this report, I feel that the results, as described, are ambiguous. For this, I will draw on a hypothetical example, illustrated below:
In this scenario, we have a total population of 200 people. We assume that the occurrence of spontaneous cancer is low, about 1%. Splitting the groups into smokers (ie lifestyle choice) and non-smokers of 100 each, we would expect that 1 person from each group would get cancer, regardless of any lifestyle choices. We can say that fate was not on their side because there was nothing they could do.
Assuming that smoking raises your risk 10 times, we then would expect 10 out of 100 smokers to develop cancer for a total of 11.
This is where the results become a point of debate. What makes the 1 person in the non-smoking group get cancer - is it fate? In this case, lets assume yes. The difference between her and the 99 other non-smokers was simply a stroke of bad luck. And the 1 smoker who gets cancer who would have gotten cancer anyway? Again, lets say that fate was responsible. Then there are the 10 additional people who got cancer in the smoking group. What made these 10+1 people instead of the other 89 "healthy" smokers is unclear and attributed to chance, or fate* in this case.
As other bloggers correctly indicate, no physician can tell a patient with certainty whether they will get cancer, smoking or not. In fact and to be fair, there is a greater chance that a smoker will not develop cancer (89) than actually get it (11). Making the assumptions above, it is fate that separates the 1 from the 99 in the non-smokers and the 11 from the 89 in the smokers group. Looking at it from this angle, it is valid to claim that fate is responsible for who gets cancer and who doesn't.
But to say that it is fate that dictates the 10 smoking-caused cancers vs. the 1 spontaneous tumor in either group is simply not true. It is the lifestyle choice itself that has given rise to the 10 additional malignancies. Therefore, we can no longer state that fate alone is responsible for cancer, irrespective of behavior.
Conclusion:
These kinds of studies may lead to confusing results. We can go back and forth on this all day depending on our interpretation, but ultimately it is the experiment and conclusions drawn are flawed from the get-go. We need to be cautious of our source of information and not let these press releases do more damage than good when their results are not scientifically sound.
* A note on "fate": Simply because something is unknown, does not mean it is due to fate or chance. There are many phenomena that we do not quite understand completely and tumorigenesis is one of them. Many things that used to be considered fate or luck now have scientific explanations. Take, for instance, the people who can have repeated unprotected sexual intercourse with an HIV+ partner without acquiring the virus (akin to not developing cancer despite smoking). An uninformed observer would say that these people are not fated to get AIDS. However, in reality, these many of these people are descendants from survivors of the Bubonic Plague in Europe. The disease selected for a genetic polymorphism that made some people resistant to viral infection and this allele remains today. I suspect that the susceptibility of some people (the 10) over others (the 89) will soon become clear in time with a biologic rational rather than pure fate.
I noticed that this story has gotten picked up by a number of members of the medical-science blogosphere and it seems as though there are a number of differing opinions about the interpretation of this study. If there is confusion amongst us, then I'm certain that there is even more confusion among the general public about what exactly this all means. Here, I would like to offer some of my own thoughts on the matter and how it illustrates a number of key points that I often see arising in the field and how it can lead to disagreement.
1) Source: Before we even get to the results of the survey, and even before we make conclusions, we have to examine the source of the information. As a charity driven by donations from people concerned about cancer, I doubt that Cancer Research UK is an unbiased arbiter in the information collection business. I am not surprised that the survey they conduct results in data that supports the need for their own organization. This is why polling services are used by a majority of interests groups, so that they can not be blamed for influencing the results.
Moreover, the original source is a press release and the coverage is based upon the scant information provided in it. This brings up two important faults: a) we do not have access to the original data and methods (see below) and that there was no oversight in the way the survey was conducted (no peer-review) and b) the information has been processed by two people who probably have very little experience in reporting scientific results. I don't know about you, but most of the humanities majors I knew in college loathed their science work [the rant on teaching science in college will be saved for a later time] and would probably have a hard time fairly making conclusions about a report that has an unclear experimental method (again, see below).
2) Experimental Design: What was the exact question posed to Brits in this study? We don't have this information. The wording of such surveys is extremely important, especially when the wording can influence the responses of the participants. Without the wording, we can not know for sure if this report was clear and unbiased. For this and the reasons above, I usually don't read these kinds of report expecting to learn something.
3) Results are open to interpretation: In perhaps my biggest gripe about this report, I feel that the results, as described, are ambiguous. For this, I will draw on a hypothetical example, illustrated below:
In this scenario, we have a total population of 200 people. We assume that the occurrence of spontaneous cancer is low, about 1%. Splitting the groups into smokers (ie lifestyle choice) and non-smokers of 100 each, we would expect that 1 person from each group would get cancer, regardless of any lifestyle choices. We can say that fate was not on their side because there was nothing they could do.
Assuming that smoking raises your risk 10 times, we then would expect 10 out of 100 smokers to develop cancer for a total of 11.
This is where the results become a point of debate. What makes the 1 person in the non-smoking group get cancer - is it fate? In this case, lets assume yes. The difference between her and the 99 other non-smokers was simply a stroke of bad luck. And the 1 smoker who gets cancer who would have gotten cancer anyway? Again, lets say that fate was responsible. Then there are the 10 additional people who got cancer in the smoking group. What made these 10+1 people instead of the other 89 "healthy" smokers is unclear and attributed to chance, or fate* in this case.
As other bloggers correctly indicate, no physician can tell a patient with certainty whether they will get cancer, smoking or not. In fact and to be fair, there is a greater chance that a smoker will not develop cancer (89) than actually get it (11). Making the assumptions above, it is fate that separates the 1 from the 99 in the non-smokers and the 11 from the 89 in the smokers group. Looking at it from this angle, it is valid to claim that fate is responsible for who gets cancer and who doesn't.
But to say that it is fate that dictates the 10 smoking-caused cancers vs. the 1 spontaneous tumor in either group is simply not true. It is the lifestyle choice itself that has given rise to the 10 additional malignancies. Therefore, we can no longer state that fate alone is responsible for cancer, irrespective of behavior.
Conclusion:
These kinds of studies may lead to confusing results. We can go back and forth on this all day depending on our interpretation, but ultimately it is the experiment and conclusions drawn are flawed from the get-go. We need to be cautious of our source of information and not let these press releases do more damage than good when their results are not scientifically sound.
* A note on "fate": Simply because something is unknown, does not mean it is due to fate or chance. There are many phenomena that we do not quite understand completely and tumorigenesis is one of them. Many things that used to be considered fate or luck now have scientific explanations. Take, for instance, the people who can have repeated unprotected sexual intercourse with an HIV+ partner without acquiring the virus (akin to not developing cancer despite smoking). An uninformed observer would say that these people are not fated to get AIDS. However, in reality, these many of these people are descendants from survivors of the Bubonic Plague in Europe. The disease selected for a genetic polymorphism that made some people resistant to viral infection and this allele remains today. I suspect that the susceptibility of some people (the 10) over others (the 89) will soon become clear in time with a biologic rational rather than pure fate.
Friday, January 5, 2007
Bye Bye Banners!
I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, Answer Bitch from E! Online, and heard their discussion about fan sites of celebrities getting shut down because the advertisements on their webpages were generating revenue. Since you can't use a person's image for profit without their consent, the websites were in violation of legal doctrine.
Similarly, I don't want for anyone to claim that I used some bit of information/picture for my own profit from the banners on this blog. Therefore, I'm deleting the GoogleAds from this site and will never put ads from other sources.
Moreover, I feel like I shouldn't be pressured (even if its a minute influence) to write for profit. Since Blogger! is free, there are no overhead costs that I need to cover with ad revenue.
That is all.
Similarly, I don't want for anyone to claim that I used some bit of information/picture for my own profit from the banners on this blog. Therefore, I'm deleting the GoogleAds from this site and will never put ads from other sources.
Moreover, I feel like I shouldn't be pressured (even if its a minute influence) to write for profit. Since Blogger! is free, there are no overhead costs that I need to cover with ad revenue.
That is all.
Book Report: Next by Michael Crichton
Tite: Next
Author: Michael Crichton, MD
Amazon View
From the guy that brought us Jurassic Park, Sphere (one of my favorite books ever), and Congo (all turned into movies) comes his latest novel, Next. He's also the guy that inspired the show ER. I had forgotten about his medical background and sort of figured since I hadn't heard about him in a while that he was done with. The cover also reminded me about the movie 12 Monkeys and I thought it was going to be about the same thing. But then I go home for winter break and my dad starts talking to me about this book hes reading about gene therapies, cell lines, and transgenic animals. This kind of stuff is right up my alley since its the type of work I do in lab. I figured I had to readthis book since medical science is rarely used for popular fiction.
Overall, I thought the book was pretty good - not great, but good. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I not realized the errors in the science, which is what I'm going to talk about in this blog entry.
NOTE-SPOILER WARNING: If you don't want to know the ending, then don't read the rest...
Problems with the main story line: The primary story involves a cancer patient (Burnett [striking resemblance to the commonly used Burkitt's lymphoma cell line]) who signs up to be a research participant. Crichton glosses over the exact methodology the PI used, but in the end, the PI generates a cell line from Mr. Burnett that produces abundant qualities of a anti-cancer cytokine (molecule). Without telling the patient, the PI sells the cell line to a biotech company and doesn't compensate Mr. Burnett. In retaliation, Burnett plots to contaminate the biotech's stocks of the cell line. When he does this, the biotech hires a bounty hunter (after filing a law suit) to get the cells back. Here's where Crighton starts going wrong in his science. Since Burnett disappears, the bounty hunter goes after Burnett's daughter and her son because they are "genetically identical to their father." Now, you don't need to be a geneticists to know what is wrong with this statement. The daughter is obviously a cross between her father AND her mother, so she would not be genetically identical and thus nullify the claims in the lawsuit. There's only a 50% chance that she happened to inherit her father's genes that possessed the ability to produce cytokine producing cells. Moreover, neither the daughter nor the grandson had cancer and therefore, their bodies would not have been "challenged" in the same way as Mr. Burnett. Their cells would likely not produce much cytokine (if producing alot of cytokines was normal in their bodies due to their genetic make-up, Mr. Burnett likely wouldn't have developed cancer at all, therefore, cytokine production is a response to cancer). Finally, there is a technical problem with just taking biopies from people. Cell lines are incredibly difficult to generate and since their cells were normal, it would have been even more unlikely for them to generate a successful clone. If they did transform the cells (some kind of immortalization procedure), then the law suit would be null because the genetics had been changed. So, in all, Crighton missed many points that he should have known from his research in genetics.
What I liked alot were the issues raised by advances in genetic technologies. I think that these issues are what make the book worth reading. Even though I work with genetics daily, many of these concerns were things I hadn't even thought about nor are they discussed in our pursuit of advancing knowledge. I will write some seperate posts about the problems we face in the future of genetics.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Blog: Long road to medical school
I like to follow the rule: Never give advice that you wouldn't follow yourself.
I apply the same thing when I recommend readings to people, blogs included. So, any blogs that I profile on here will be blogs that I read. For the personal blogs, I will usually have read the ENTIRE thing before posting it on here. Of course, I could see that changing in the future as my time grows shorter. But for now, I like reading medical student blogs to see what their life is like and to get a better sense of blogging (the good and the bad).
I just got done reading Old MD Girl's blog called "The Long Road to Medical School." [Link is on the right] I was glad to find this one because she is also an MD/PhD student. The amount of information regarding the MD/PhD program is pretty sparse. There are alot of MD blogs out there and hers reads like most of the rest of them out there. There tends to be a fair amount of bitching that goes on there, but hey, its her blog and she can do what she wants with it. Moreover, its easy to be critical when I'm not suffering through med school also.
She started her program at 29, which makes me feel better about starting at 25. Heck, there are people that start medical school in their 40's! There are also horror stories about grad students who take 10 years to graduate - in less time, most MudPhuds can get two degrees!
Anyway, shes a student at Penn's MSTP. A little bit feminist, which is cool. I just wish she would be a little more consistent in her opinions (doesn't mind terms like slave labor or calling people pussies). God bless her for keeping up an almost 1 blog a day average, thats some stamina right there. Its not one of my favorites, so I'm putting it in the "Other Blogs You Might Like" Category. The ones I like and read regularly are in the "Recommended Blogs" section.
I apply the same thing when I recommend readings to people, blogs included. So, any blogs that I profile on here will be blogs that I read. For the personal blogs, I will usually have read the ENTIRE thing before posting it on here. Of course, I could see that changing in the future as my time grows shorter. But for now, I like reading medical student blogs to see what their life is like and to get a better sense of blogging (the good and the bad).
I just got done reading Old MD Girl's blog called "The Long Road to Medical School." [Link is on the right] I was glad to find this one because she is also an MD/PhD student. The amount of information regarding the MD/PhD program is pretty sparse. There are alot of MD blogs out there and hers reads like most of the rest of them out there. There tends to be a fair amount of bitching that goes on there, but hey, its her blog and she can do what she wants with it. Moreover, its easy to be critical when I'm not suffering through med school also.
She started her program at 29, which makes me feel better about starting at 25. Heck, there are people that start medical school in their 40's! There are also horror stories about grad students who take 10 years to graduate - in less time, most MudPhuds can get two degrees!
Anyway, shes a student at Penn's MSTP. A little bit feminist, which is cool. I just wish she would be a little more consistent in her opinions (doesn't mind terms like slave labor or calling people pussies). God bless her for keeping up an almost 1 blog a day average, thats some stamina right there. Its not one of my favorites, so I'm putting it in the "Other Blogs You Might Like" Category. The ones I like and read regularly are in the "Recommended Blogs" section.
Reference List of Words
MudPhud - Shorthand/slang term for person holding both MD and PhD degrees. Also, MudFud.
MSTP - Medical Scientist Training Program; NIH-funded dual degree (MD/PhD) program.
Pre-Med - Person who aspires to enter into medical school.
PI - Abbreviation for Principal Investigator.
Principal Investigator - usually the head of a lab who directs the research
SDN - Student Doctor Network (excellent resource for medical school information).
Note: this post will continue to be edited as I go along and I feel the need to add terms.
Pre-Meds Gone Wiki!
I spent part of this winter vacation satisfying an itch to learn about Wiki websites (Wiki means "fast" in Hawaiian). Basically, these are websites whose content can be edited by anyone. While this may seem like a dangerous proposal, it has been immensely successful with the generation of Wikipedia (encyclopedia) and Wiktionary (dictionary). The contributors to these sites are usually anonymous and often deliver better information (and more current) than an actual book. It should be noted that oversight is maintained by readers/contributors, so the fact checking is not always 100%, but I still think its pretty good. Whenever I have a question about some entity, I google the term, and usually the Wikipedia entry is one to the top results.
To me, I find this medium of information exchange a revolution for the internet. As Time magazine recognizes in its Person of the Year (a mirror is on the cover), YOU are now in charge
of your experiences. Gone are the days when you are forced to sit on the sidelines and let other people make decisions about the information your are fed. If you see something wrong or something you would like to change on a Wiki website, all you have to do is click Edit, make a few keystrokes, and you're done!
Now, what does this have to do with science and medicine? Well, I was thinking to myself a few months ago about the medical school admissions process and how it might be improved. For starters, it would be great if we could channel the collective efforts of the hundreds, if not thousands of anxious pre-meds that scour the internet every year for every bit of information the can about medical schools.
For those who don't know, medical schools are very different from undergraduate colleges, in that experience in med school can be starkly different between schools, whereas in undergrad (with some exceptions) is pretty much the same wherever you go. Each medical school has its own personality and like to do things differently from the others. The nuances of each school make it hard to generalize about medical schools. This means that every year, thousands of would-be pre-meds must search high and low for tid-bits of information wherever they can - internet, word of mouth, books, etc. This is also means that EVERY year, the SAME questions get asked on the Student Doctor Network Pre-Medical Forums. You get alot of: "Does School X have rolling admissions?", "When does School Y have interviews?", "How many people does School Z accept?", etc. etc.
So, I thought, there has to be a better way of doing this. Why not take advantage of the advent of Wiki websites to have a place were folks can deposit the information they find so that life is easier for everyone? After learning the basics of the Wiki WYSIWYG language (I have some experience in Web design and programming, but it was easy to pick-up regardless), I set about thinking of every single bit of information that might be necessary in the admissions process of a particular school. Starting with general info, like the name, where its located, places nearby, etc. I then broke down the pre-interview, interview, and acceptance stages into seperate categories.
As you can see in the Blank Template on SDN, the list of attributes grew to be quite extensive. For good measure, I even added Google Maps functionality for convenience. Its then I realized just how much information about a school actually exists - and its different for EACH school. I'll leave it up to others to go in and fill out the information from the backbone template.
Its an unusual way to make a website, especially since there is essentially no content in the beginning - it will take some time for people to make enough significant contributions. But once its there, the information can be used for some time and updated as necessary. I'm excited to see how it all plays out. I'm also working on re-working the rest of the Pre-Med Wiki, so that it is a little more comprehensive and conducive for a Wiki website (it is currently based on a mini-book, written two years ago).
To me, I find this medium of information exchange a revolution for the internet. As Time magazine recognizes in its Person of the Year (a mirror is on the cover), YOU are now in charge
of your experiences. Gone are the days when you are forced to sit on the sidelines and let other people make decisions about the information your are fed. If you see something wrong or something you would like to change on a Wiki website, all you have to do is click Edit, make a few keystrokes, and you're done!Now, what does this have to do with science and medicine? Well, I was thinking to myself a few months ago about the medical school admissions process and how it might be improved. For starters, it would be great if we could channel the collective efforts of the hundreds, if not thousands of anxious pre-meds that scour the internet every year for every bit of information the can about medical schools.
For those who don't know, medical schools are very different from undergraduate colleges, in that experience in med school can be starkly different between schools, whereas in undergrad (with some exceptions) is pretty much the same wherever you go. Each medical school has its own personality and like to do things differently from the others. The nuances of each school make it hard to generalize about medical schools. This means that every year, thousands of would-be pre-meds must search high and low for tid-bits of information wherever they can - internet, word of mouth, books, etc. This is also means that EVERY year, the SAME questions get asked on the Student Doctor Network Pre-Medical Forums. You get alot of: "Does School X have rolling admissions?", "When does School Y have interviews?", "How many people does School Z accept?", etc. etc.
So, I thought, there has to be a better way of doing this. Why not take advantage of the advent of Wiki websites to have a place were folks can deposit the information they find so that life is easier for everyone? After learning the basics of the Wiki WYSIWYG language (I have some experience in Web design and programming, but it was easy to pick-up regardless), I set about thinking of every single bit of information that might be necessary in the admissions process of a particular school. Starting with general info, like the name, where its located, places nearby, etc. I then broke down the pre-interview, interview, and acceptance stages into seperate categories.
As you can see in the Blank Template on SDN, the list of attributes grew to be quite extensive. For good measure, I even added Google Maps functionality for convenience. Its then I realized just how much information about a school actually exists - and its different for EACH school. I'll leave it up to others to go in and fill out the information from the backbone template.
Its an unusual way to make a website, especially since there is essentially no content in the beginning - it will take some time for people to make enough significant contributions. But once its there, the information can be used for some time and updated as necessary. I'm excited to see how it all plays out. I'm also working on re-working the rest of the Pre-Med Wiki, so that it is a little more comprehensive and conducive for a Wiki website (it is currently based on a mini-book, written two years ago).
Monday, January 1, 2007
Who Blogs? And Why?
I found this article from Slate talking about the type of people that blog.
I think blogging is an interesting phenomenon, especially the rate that it has pervaded our society. Sadly, I know that many blogs are junk. I heard on the news the other day that the average blog readership is at about 1 (author included). So, for the most part, people are really just writing to themselves. The Slate article confirms that many people think of their blog as a kind of journal that provides an account of their experiences.
I'll admit that my blog readership is low, probably not much higher than 1 (thanks for the comment Mo). This is because I'm holding off on "advertising" until I know I will keep at this thing for a while and until I know that there is actually some content on here worth reading. I have a number of blog entries that are still in the "draft" stage that I want to polish off sometime in the future.
Another thing is that I'm trying to define my message and who my audience might be. I would like to think that I would follow in the path of Blog A-Listers Top 100 Bloggers - that is to say the bloggers who actually have people read what they write:
I think that there are a number of BIG mistakes that alot of bloggers make when constructing their messages. I will try to avoid this by only commenting on issues pertinent to medicine and science. Many of the med-student blogs I read like to comment on their personal lives (ie dating, lifestyle, etc) that I find particularly boring. I am also open to criticism, in fact I encourage it because a difference of opinion is a great way to realize flaws in both arguments and thus, the way people can come to an agreement.
Anyway, I guess in the end I'm not 100% sure why I do this, but will continue to give it more thought. Oh yeah, I find that some blog entries can get TOO long. So I'll go ahead and follow my own advice and keep them to about 1/2 page. A page at the most!
I think blogging is an interesting phenomenon, especially the rate that it has pervaded our society. Sadly, I know that many blogs are junk. I heard on the news the other day that the average blog readership is at about 1 (author included). So, for the most part, people are really just writing to themselves. The Slate article confirms that many people think of their blog as a kind of journal that provides an account of their experiences.
I'll admit that my blog readership is low, probably not much higher than 1 (thanks for the comment Mo). This is because I'm holding off on "advertising" until I know I will keep at this thing for a while and until I know that there is actually some content on here worth reading. I have a number of blog entries that are still in the "draft" stage that I want to polish off sometime in the future.
Another thing is that I'm trying to define my message and who my audience might be. I would like to think that I would follow in the path of Blog A-Listers Top 100 Bloggers - that is to say the bloggers who actually have people read what they write:
Most A-listers are men over 30; have published before; are in it primarily to change public opinions and not to share their experiences; know only a fraction of their readers; and don't conceal their identities.The only thing is that I am not over 30 , will be sharing my experiences in an effort to raise awareness about science careers, and my identity is concealed (I guess I won't be making the Top 100). I have published before (student newspaper commentary and scientific publications), would like to change public opinions (to get people to start thinking analytically), and don't know any of you readers. I'm don't tell anyone I blog because I don't really want people I know reading this because I feel it might skew my comments for fear of offending someone.
I think that there are a number of BIG mistakes that alot of bloggers make when constructing their messages. I will try to avoid this by only commenting on issues pertinent to medicine and science. Many of the med-student blogs I read like to comment on their personal lives (ie dating, lifestyle, etc) that I find particularly boring. I am also open to criticism, in fact I encourage it because a difference of opinion is a great way to realize flaws in both arguments and thus, the way people can come to an agreement.
Anyway, I guess in the end I'm not 100% sure why I do this, but will continue to give it more thought. Oh yeah, I find that some blog entries can get TOO long. So I'll go ahead and follow my own advice and keep them to about 1/2 page. A page at the most!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
