So it seems like its been quite a while since my last post. Although its a bit understandable why I wasn't able to post anything sooner, especially with deadlines coming up such as with the paper I am submitting, committee meeting, comp exam, and various other experiments that need to be done as I'm transitioning my project into a different field, I still feel a little bad that I wasn't able to keep this blog updated. But no more, I shall try my best to keep this going, even thought it's highly unlikely that no one really reads this, but hey, writing improves happiness (at least for me), which improves neurogenesis in the brain (I'm sure there is a reference for that somewhere; I believe it falls under enrichment in environment can increase neurogenesis in brains of rodents or something like that, which incidentally is the field my project is transitioning onto), and increasing neurogenesis will hopefully lead to increase in productivity and output. That's the hope at least. This whole idea is thanks to a TED talk by Shawn Achor linked to me by my good friend Steve Kim. I've attached the link if anyone wants to watch, its actually a very good short talk! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXy__kBVq1M
Its really interesting how a research project seems to develop over time. I originally started looking at a mouse model of multiple sclerosis, which without going into too much detail, didn't really pan out. And this is one of the problems plaguing research using animal models. First of, animal models are just that, a system that is manipulated to simulate certain pathological mechanisms of a human disease so that we can study it and uncover more mechanisms or ways to "treat" the model disease. By no means does the animal model even remotely equivalent to the human disease, in fact, it could be very far indeed. But most of the time, we restrict ourselves to the idea that we're asking a specific question, so the model is the closet thing we have to test, which is reasonable, I guess. This always reminds me of a comment my colleague Wulin Teo from Univ. of Calgary who said he almost wishes we could study the actually human disease, just dissect out the human spinal cord and take a look at what pathologies are really going on in the human disease (we were talking about MS in this instance). All ethical issues aside, I kind of agree, without studying afflicted humans, how can we imagine to accomplish the treatment or even cure the human disease. Of course, many doctors (and general people) would be appalled by this comment, and by no means am I saying that we should go out and start experimenting on patients, but I feel that there is more need for directed and focused experimentation on human samples. Clinical research needs to merge more with biomedical research to have any real input into translational medicine.
I personally feel clinical research needs this influx of biomedical research, and with no offense intended, I think clinical research the way it is right now, is fickle at best. It needs more stringent research guidelines, like the ones found in biomedical research. Scientists who has published papers or are in the process know what I am talking about. For example, to validate a point or finding for publication, you must show that your hypothesis stands up using multiple different experiments such as in vitro and in vivo experiments. In clinical research (as far as I know and what I've seen), doing one experiment on one or a few patient samples is enough to publish something. Now how is that possible, the patients are likely very different (genetically) and may different environmental factors that can impact their specific illness, and what about the location of the sample and what drugs these patients were on when the biopsy was taken. Essentially, there isn't a consistent and controlled foundation from which to validate your hypothesis in clinical research (and I understand there are limitations when it comes to getting your hand on human samples).
In correspondence to this, I'd like to acknowledge a temporary but very intelligent supervisor that I've had the privilege of working for: Dr. Peter Rieckmann. His philosophy was to coordinate and facilitate communication and idea sharing between medical doctors and graduate researchers/postdocs. I really enjoyed working with my medical colleagues and fellow researchers as a team when we had bi-weekly lab meetings where everyone presented what they had managed to complete during that time. It was very helpful when, for example, you'd notice an experimental phenotype and one of the medical doctors would chime up and say that what you see looks very similar to what they notice in the patients, and as the disease progresses, they also see these other features. This would not only provide feedback from a clinical angle, but also allows you to think "outside the box" when it comes to research.
I think it was Albert Einstein who said "imagination is more important than knowledge", wherein the ability to troubleshoot a problem with creativity and imagination is a bonus to researchers, it is unfortunately one of the traits that is in danger of being lost when going through graduate school.
