Vituperative Ramblings

As I've been deep into the epidemiology homework almost all evening, I'm now taking a well-deserved break to enjoy a beer whilst I hammer out a few lines on here. Epi is certainly turning out to be an enjoyable course (from a nerdly point of view), but it's a lot of work nonetheless.

Whether it be a good thing or bad, the one thing that particularly struck me tonight as I worked my way through the chapters on calculating rates of morbidity and mortality was the cold, methodological approach to dealing with disease and death. As far as methods are concerned, people are reduced to just a number to be plugged into some equation. A bit creepy, to be sure, and somewhat of a paradox if you think about it. Those involved in the field of epidemiology have to possess a certain degree of concern for human welfare to be involved in that kind of work; otherwise they would probably pursue other lines of work that probably pay more. I suppose it's commendable on a certain level to be able to separate the human face from the raw data in order to serve the common good.

But concern for the common good is one significant difference I've noticed between associating with the health science graduate students and the biolgoy grad students. I'm in the biology program and perhaps the greatest disappointment are the fellow grad students. This has bothered me since my entrance into the program about a year and a half ago. With a few exceptions they are a bunch of pompous jerks whose collective sole concern is themselves and their own esoteric research.

The health sciences grad students are by and large of a vastly different character. Most currently work in one health profession or another and exhibit an entirely different approach to academics and their place in the grand scheme of things than that shown by most bio students. The health sciences folks are much more grounded in reality. Certainly they are as intense as the bio students when it comes to research, perhaps in some cases even moreso, but it's not this all-consuming, cut anyone's throat to make a name for themselves approach. Moreover, their collective concern is the betterment of the human condition, not their name in some journal that no one ever reads.

I'm certainly not knocking academic inquiry into the various process of the natural wold. I'm a biologist at heart and am thrilled as much as anyone else by the prospect of discovery, of adding new, novel information to the body of scientific knowledge. When I was in Thailand, almost every insect, every odd plant earned a second glance from me (usually followed by "Hmmmm. Well that's different"). This is why I pursued a masters degree in biology and would not go back and change things if I could. The natural world is filled with so many wonders; one could spend a lifetime studying a single mosquito genus or a species of moss and at the end still not know everything there is to know. And of course it's all important work, from a certain point of view. My biggest gripe has been, and will be, the approach to such pursuits.

Perhaps this is just what naturally occurs at the graduate level, where students can be a bit too zealous in what they do. Maybe they have PhD programs and eventual professorships on their mind. Or it could be the fact that, at 33, I'm a bit older (and maybe wiser? Nah) than many fellow grad students. I work full-time, have experienced more of the real world, and possibly have different world views that someone who's 24. I've also progressively become more of idealist in my old age. Human suffering in all of it's many forms is becoming something that could keep me up at night. In the final analysis, it's probably a combination of these factors and probably some i have yet to consider. Whatever the reason(s) my future academic and career paths are become more well-defined.

Peace Corps, anyone?