Epiphany Symphony - IV. Psycho

IV. Psycho - Accecato da scienza

science
poking probing proposing posing
vanity insanity inanity profanity
gathering blathering bleating bleeding
vying sighing lying dying
schmience

I have a Love/Hate relationship with science. Okay, not so much with the "Love" and a little more "Dislike." I view science as a tool, albeit a powerful one, but I can't 'love' it any more than I can 'love' my favorite fork. I certainly can't ignore the 'good' things that have come from research and innovation like, say, the automobile, the internet, antibiotics, or my iPod, just to name a few examples. I think, more truthfully, I'm jaded with academic science. Truly, the people I'm surrounded by are all very articulate and intelligent. But I can't fathom what gets them out of bed in the morning to do what they do.

I know what I'm supposed to be doing here, and that's trying to figure out how to apply the scientific method. But I thought I was also in graduate school to learn about a lifelong career in science. In medical school, we get an inkling in the first two years about becoming a professional (it may or may not be taught very well, but at least they try). In graduate school, however, there is no dialogue about becoming a career scientist. From what I gather, choosing to be in academic research means:

• doing experiments and getting said experiments to work at some point
• putting results into some form and praying it gets published in a scientific journal
• locking yourself away in your office reading papers and writing grants
• emerging from your well-deserved plush office to oversee your underlings
• teaching a class or two to keep the department head happy
• random timewasters in organizing journal clubs and seminars (you can bypass this by pushing it off on senior graduate students. Or even junior students. Half the people that do manage to attend the function aren't paying attention or are outright napping, anyway).
• posing as a mentor to wannabe career scientists so they can grow up and replenish/supersaturate the medical research industrial complex and this whole science geek life cycle renews itself. This would be a KILLER episode of 'The Crocodile Hunter':

  "You see boys and girls? The common lab rat is a shy creature, and usually hides in the dimly lit laboratories of academe. Ooh! There's one now! Watch me lure him closer with this sign saying "FREE FOOD". GOT HIM! This is a typical specimen, pale complexion due to lack of sunlight, rather flimsy, and very nearsighted. Here - you want to hold it...they're quite slippery....Crikey! There it goes, back to its bench..."

What this place really lacks is true role models. Am I too old to want a role model at this point? I don't think so, because so much of my education is centered around learning the academic system. It just seems that they don't even try here.

Perhaps it's because nowadays you can't be the proverbial Renaissance Man anymore. Training here seems to lead people into pigeon holes where this person studies chromatin, that person studies cell signalling, the person in the next office studies atherosclerosis, and so on and so forth. And yet, the bottom line in academia is money. Every researcher here is scrambling for dollars to bring into the University so they can keep their jobs. I feel like we work hard for our experimental results not to make the world a better place but to help fund the bloated institution of academic science. The system is such that you ignore the forest because of the trees.

But what good is it doing our society to spend so much money on biomedical research? Is the quality of our health any better as a result? According to the groundbreaking World Health Organization report in 2000, the United States healthcare system is nowhere near where it should be. The U.S. spends the most money on health care, yet comes in last in indicators such as infant mortality rates, low birth-weight percentages, and years of life lost. And I'm not even going to touch on the problem of fair access to quality health care.

Reflecting on some of the 'hot topics' in cancer research the last decade, we have a bunch of things that teach us a lot about cellular biology, but precious little that can leave the bench and make it to the bedside: apoptosis, p53, Ras, src, telomeres, to name a few. See any magic bullets? There are none. How about this: focus on preventive measures. The U.S. spends the least amount of money on preventive medicine amongst developed countries, and it's showing. Instead of looking for yet another cancer mutation, take that money and put it into programs that help people to stop smoking, eat healthy, and exercise.

Better yet, trim the fat from the university. Medical centers across the country have been able to fatten up on 5% increases in the NIH budget every year. Nice, if you believe more medical research leads to a better health care system. It also allows more mediocre science to go on - more scientists who have learned to work the grant system so they can hang on in academia instead of going out into the world and doing something useful for society. I call it Nerd Welfare. Here's a thought: thin the herd a little, use their collective mindthink to solve the problems that I can see if I just walk a block or two away from the hospital, like homelessness, hunger, and unemployment.

Is it too much to give scientists the power to do something? What we have here is now the social version of the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle:

The more you know about something, the less likely you are to be in a position to do something about it.

For example: scientist studying earthquakes measures a quake somewhere in the Indian Ocean seconds/minutes after it happens. Thinks to himself, "Hmmm...there may be a tsunami." Can't tell anyone. Can't reach anyone. 200,000 people die. Can we get this guy a freakin' phone? How about a button that tells people in BIG NEON LIGHTS to get away from the water?!?!

However, the cynic in me believes that giving someone such power eventually exposes them to forces that they can't control. Would they use the knowledge they have to make decisions? Take the case of Senator Bill Frist M.D. (R-TN). We in the medical community know very well how HIV is transmitted, yet Senator Frist eschews the scientific knowledge that we have accumulated, and gives the religious right party line (interview transcript here), about tears and sweat being able to transmit the virus. Unbelievable this man graduated from Princeton where he studied health policy then went to Harvard Medical School.

Perhaps scientists aren't ready for the responsibility. Or maybe we're just not used to seeing the forest through the trees.