Science/Life: Teaching/learning the thought process, and...

In my work, there are occasions to see tissue samples from animal or human under microscope.

And it really takes training to see what people with trained eyes see.

With untrained eyes, it's not even easy to distinguish colon, liver, lung and pancreas. And when it comes to detailed histopathological changes, it's even more difficult. 

----------------------------------------------------------

Can you guess what they are?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if we are looking at the same sample and image, the information we get can be very different. When we want to learn how and what to look, we need help from someone who can explain the images. Only when we learn to connect the dark spots to dead cells, and the fattened mass of cells to pre-cancerous lesions, we begin to get meaningful information out of the images.


I respect creativity and all.  But there are so much stuff that are already existing. And, if you don't know these, you cannot even communicate with knowledgeable people, or have access to existing knowledge. You don't have to reinvent wheels and you can ride on the giant's shoulder to enjoy the view. But you got to climb up the giant to get to his shoulder.


Ignorance or innocence cannot get you far. If you want to ride on the existing knowledge to get far, get education in the art of your choice with the language the experts speak, and install the thought process commonly shared in the art with the aid of teachers and mentors who are good at the art themselves.

Many arts need you to have specific ways of thinking and viewing to be fully appreciated and understood. Arts have been inherited through apprenticeship and tutorials. Arts tend to thrive on the like-minded or through the "gifted" champion figures. This is a common sense among many groups of people who are good at their art. But a few might find this honest statement politically incorrect, because they want to believe the statement that "people are equal" and deny the differences in abilities and suitability among people.


You should not take your ability and suitability as innate and entirely genetic, rigid and unchangeable. They can change over time. Yet, you might want to take them into account in choosing what you do for the sake of yourself and others. If you don't want to protect and to serve, don't become a cop or a national guard. If you cannot stand watching pictures of tissues, find something other than histologist or oncopathologist.


People may be equal at first in an abstract and legal sense, but what people acquire and what people become because of the acquired, are not equal. People differentiate. And they function as different as colon, lung, liver and pancreas in the society.


So, what's the message? I like getting educated in arts. But depending on your ability and suitability, arts can choose or reject you. Look for happy matching. Also, today you've learned how tissues of colon, lung, liver and pancreas look like under microscope. One day this knowledge will get you one million dollars in the "Slumdog millionaire" situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(Answers)

Colon with crypts                              Lung with alveoli

Liver with hepatic lobules            Pancreas with Langerhans islets

[disclaimer: These pictures are not mine. All rights belong to photographers of the originals]

Book/Dance: If we apply "The first 20 hours How to learn anything fast", can we learn/teach Stage Tango fast?

I read "The first 20 hours How to learn anything fast" by Josh Kaufman.

The author is self-claimed learning addict. He had many subjects he wanted to learn. But he did not have enough time for them. To learn anything fast, he wanted to develop a system or a set of rules to follow. By extracting from some pedagogy disciplines and scientific research for biology, he came up with 10 principles. Then he applied the principles for several new subjects of his interest, like Yoga and Go, in his book. 

I like efficiency. Personally, If I do something seriously for like 10 years and still do not get very good at it, I'd feel ridiculous. And it helps if the "beginning barrier" can be overcome quickly. So I gave the book a try. I liked it. It was an enjoyable read.


The principles he formulated ("Chapter 3: Ten Principles of effective learning") are as follows;

1. Research the skill and related topic
2. Jump in over your head
3. Identify mental models and mental hooks
4. Imagine the opposite of what you want
5. Talk to practitioners to set expectations
6. Eliminate distractions in your environment
7. Use spaced repetition and reinforcement for memorization
8. Create scaffolds and checklists
9. Make and test predictions
10. Honor your biology

Intuitively they look correct and on the mark. A difficulty for a new learner is that the learner has no idea how to organize the new information for the new skills according to these principles.

Incidentally, I am slowly working on another Tango book project about how to dance stage tango.

The book is intended to aid dancers who want to dance tango on stage. Usually, designing a stage tango is a professional's job (they are there for you to make it easy for you). Alternatively, we imitate cool performances that we saw and choreograph the dance by ourselves. Whichever path you choose, there are helpful things if you know.

Once you get past a question, "to do or not to do the stage tango", and commit to the stage tango, the rest is all about improvements in dance quality and audience impact. There are a lot of tips, exercising, drills and tricks for the improvements. And the tips, exercising, drills and tricks are all teachable and learn-able.



If I address my points according to the principles, can I teach (or can a new student learn) the skill fast? Probably, yes.

Take "8. Create scaffolds and checklists". This involves setting up a deadline (performance date) and creating a task list for the performance. I can add "5. Talk to practitioners to set expectations" for designing the task list in a reasonable chronological order. 

Since improving dancing requires negotiation with your own body, "10. Honor your biology" will be an innate necessity as well.



As I have been busy in my work (science-cancer research) and other events in my life, this Stage Tango book project, a sequel to my previous book for beginning Tango, has been going slowly for some time. I enjoy coming back to the project on weekends and working on the design and some writing.

It's a stage tango alright. Do you want to do it, and do it well?

And this is the Josh Kaufman's book.

Science/Life: About writing; "Nothing in, nothing out."

Draft for another manuscript is almost finished. After final edit, I am hoping to send it off to a journal during March. 

After that, I got to start working on a grant. Although I have been collecting pilot results, currently the ideas look still fuzzy and unfocused. I've got to focus on it during April.



When I write something, it's like going to a bathroom. I got to load my mind with input first. That "loading" is work and research. Then, after a while, something comes out.

Garbage in, garbage out. Nothing in, nothing out.


Paper/manuscript writing and grant writing are different. Scientific writing is different from fiction writing, essay, opinion writing or poetry in many ways. 

For primary scientific writing, "Inform" is usually the main content, then some "persuade". Data and results should do much of the talking in experimental science. "Entertain" is not always easy to find in primary scientific writing. For medical science, curatorial work is mostly for review articles. That is a difference from some social science and history.

Good news for me is that I don't have to be good at writing in all the different styles of writing. I don't have to conform myself to a stereotype of writers (like this one), either. I found this meme pretty funny, though.

[Disclaimer. This meme is not mine. Someone else made it and it was floating in the internet.]

Life/Science: 7 important things to remember when you work in a medical research lab

I had a discussion with my colleagues about hiring a personnel in the lab. I also recently read an article about job market and interview, mostly about "Dos and Don'ts" for people joining workforce after college graduation.

In some cases, attitudes toward a job are entirely opposite for the hiring side (employers) and the hired side (employees). The differences are a main source for the funniness (or non-funniness).

I won't talk at length about the attitude differences, although it is quite funny/important issue, as the topic touches the core of capitalism society...employer-employee relationship.

Both sides have needs and wants. How well they are understood and negotiated is critical for happiness in both sides.


Here I write 7 important things to remember for the people who work in a lab. They should be  applicable to many biomedical research lab in University settings.

(i) Get the job done

This is by far critical. Employers hire someone because there is a job to be done, so getting the job done comes with high value and priority. In contrast, in an active lab, 9-5 mentality is not likely going to work well. A job for experimental science shares a character with that of firefighters, who (probably) do not go home on 5 without putting off the fire. It's task-oriented. People tend to be measured by the work done, not by how long they are working.

(ii) Be Low maintenance

We train people in the lab, at least at first. It's necessary and is a part of this job. But if a new hire requires much attention and time after a certain training period, he will be perceived less desirable. This leads to next;

(iii) Be Highly autonomous

Most scientists value self-motivated and autonomous people, because they usually possess that kind of personality themselves. Lab is not a sales department. Few laboratories try to give you quota. People are expected to do their work without someone else bossing around.

(iv) Understand the nature or the pace of the work of the lab

Research Lab is a rather unique work environment. It's usually a small team with (un)clear role differentiation. If you see it in this way, you'd less likely confuse forward and goalie, or quarterback and defensive guard. Many people want their work published as a form of gratification, but the publication may not come overnight. Depending on the type of the work or on the results, it may take years for the work to be published (or may not get published at all). Don't get frustrated just by looking at publication. Consider scientific work as agriculture. Short-spanned Hunter's mentality don't work for farming.

(v) Understand the importance of value proposition of yourself

Bottom line from the hiring side: You will be valued highly when you get the job done and make things easy for others. Hiring side of people understand that such people who get the job done and make things easy for others are treasure. Employers will protect such employees. And vice versa. Employees who do not get the job done and make things difficult for others....employers are (secretly) wishing such employees to go to someplace else. 

(vi) Understand the differences in positions and expectations

A lab is made up of different types and positions of people. Students have a set of duties and expectations. Technicians have a set of duties and expectations. Post docs, senior post docs, and Principal Investigators, all have different set of duties and expectations. And you have your duties and expectations. To clarify and understand them at an early stage will benefit you.

(vii) Aim for "win-win"

Have you ever thought about what is "win" for you and for your boss? You may know about your win, but do you really know what your boss want? If you don't know, ask.
This appears among the "Seven habits of highly effective people". No wonder.



Do you think they are common sense? Good. That might be an indicator that you have the "common sense".  You'd be surprised how many people do not have the "common sense".

Scientists are so cool.