After the storm

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Steve Caplan

So it’s after the storm. I don’t mean a physical storm–of course I am referring to my recent experience in posting some thoughts on Prof. Stephen Hawking’s decision to join the boycott of Israel. From threatening personal emails to being called a racist bigot (and worse), I’ve been somewhat peaked piqued at the the responses that have surfaced.

Without rehashing the issues entirely, just a couple comments–before I move from the storm to something definitely more beautiful–and less controversial, I’m sure.

1) Despite what some readers might have inferred, I never claimed that I have any right to presume that Dr. Hawking needs to do as I suggest–he is certainly intelligent enough to make up his own mind. As Stephen Curry questioned in a tweet, I believe that this was a missed opportunity for him to go and give ‘em hell–to voice his opinion and state his points. He certainly would have had center stage. The boycott only pushes Israelis and her supporters to reach the conclusion that the entire world is against them–all in the context of the genocide of the Holocaust. It also energizes the more radical Palestinian views, provided false hope that Israel will collapse and simply disappear.

2) Some readers have commented that I am biased. Well, those who write editorials necessarily take positions–and despite the fire that I drew, I must have been fairly balanced because the attacks were not only from Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) supporters, but from those supporting Israel’s occupation (yes, I do agree to that description) of the West Bank.

I  noted in the article that I support the attempts to bring both sides to the negotiating table, and I fully support the idea of a two-state solution in which Israel returns most/all of its conquered land to the Palestinians as part of a negotiated peace deal. I also noted my disdain for the current government and policies, but did not fail to point out that the Palestinians have also suffered from terribly poor leadership since 1947 (perhaps until now). If they had had good leadership in the 1990s, I am certain that they would already have a state by now.
I stand by my comments that there is a lot of blame to share on both sides over the years, and my brief historical explanations. But my view is that right now, blame serves no purpose. Hatred serves no purpose. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians can afford to look back and maintain dreams of what could have been. Israel exists and isn’t going away. And the Palestinians exist and need a state of their own. And if I am attacked for saying that an academic or general boycott of Israel is not going to advance this agenda of a negotiated peace and two state solution–so be it.

With that said, I move on to springtime in Omaha, and believe it or not, the beautiful flowers at the Omaha Lauritzen (Botanical) Gardens were outdone by a very unusual exhibit, which I bring to you here! LEGO in the spring!

bull-lego

Over 45,000 pieces of LEGO were used to make the bull. The artist, Sean Kenney, used over 0.5 million pieces for the entire exhibit of about 27 sculptures!

lego birds

man-lego

fox-lego

humbird-lego

The hummingbird sculpture reaches a height of about 8 feet!

rose-lego

fish-lego

bee-lego

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
POST SCRIPT:
The BDS movement has basically invented their own narrative of the past 65 years. Failing to block the State of Israel from arising, and failing to ever note that Palestinians could have had a state in 1948 when Israel accepted–and Palestinians went to war over the 2-state solution partition plan, today’s BDS has reinvented history. Their claims of a one-sided victimhood with “ethnic cleansing” and a moral equivalence to African Americans and South Africa insult the intelligence of anyone who knows history. But they take advantage of young and naive new-agers searching for issues that they can support and feel they are helping a “victim.”

This is not to say that Palestinians aren’t victims–they are–first and foremost to their own leadership of the last 65 years. There is legitimate blame on the Israeli side as well. But the BDS ignore anything that would divert their invented narrative of history.

With regards to anti-Semitism, BDS supporter, author, and attacker (in The Guardian) of my articles, says it all here with an eye-opening tweet:

Howard Jacobson Tweet

If anyone has any lingering doubt that anti-Semitism plays a role in BDS activities, this attack on the “face” of the author that Henry just linked below says it all. Anti-Semitism is still alive and kicking, especially in the BDS movement.

Posted in research, science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

My Life in Nebraska

Posted on May 11, 2013 by Steve Caplan

Years ago, when I still permitted myself a very tiny slice of time for television, I enjoyed the antics of Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer in the British comedy series, “As Time Goes By.” In particular, I wholly identified with the rather reclusive and mildly anti-social Lionel Hardcastle, author of the not-exactly-best-selling book, “My Life in Kenya.”

Here I am today, years later, struggling for recognition of my own not-exactly-best-sellers. But unlike Lionel Hardcastle, who in the series would have stood on his head to avoid another appearance or book-signing that his enthusiastic publisher would arrange, I am a publicity-hound.

I’ve written before about my attempts to self-promote–and unfortunately for some of you readers, you are the unhappy beneficiaries of these attempts. But in addition to blogging about my fiction, I do make serious attempts to reach out to potential readers whenever I can. This, of course, includes my pitch at scientific seminars that I deliver (and if you don’t believe me, you can ask one of our own about about the seminar I gave this winter in Toronto). But another source of my victims efforts is public libraries.

Some time ago I was able to convince the Omaha Public Library system to purchase a few copies of my novels, and there are 4 of one novel and 2 of the other circulating among the city’s dozen or so branches. More recently, I made a concerted attempt to interest libraries in the towns and villages scattered across Nebraska and eastern Iowa. I searched for the emails of librarians, personnel involved in acquisition, websites with forms and so on for about 80 different libraries. I wrote or contacted them all. In the ensuing time since, I know directly of sales of about a dozen copies. And I received one invitation to come for a lecture/book signing about lab lit, mental health, science and more.

author-Norfolk

So this past week, I drove out in my Prius 105 miles northwest of Omaha (and back on a couple gallons of gas) to the charming town of Norfolk, Nebraska. Norfolk is the 9th largest town in Nebraska with just under 25,000 people, and sports a very pleasant library, with a nice electronic sign to let people know of special V.I.P.s who have been invited for presentations. I learned that Norfolk, which sits at the north fork of the Elkorn River, had its name mangled at one point and therefore ended up Norfolk, rather than Norfork.

In all, I had a wonderful evening, pretending to be Lionel Hardcastle, and talking about my novels, explaining lab lit, the dire straits that scientists are facing today, and generally answering outstanding questions from interested library patrons. I even sold a few books. So all in all, I’ll adapt my motto from the famous Americanism of “Have Gun, Will Travel.” For me, it’s “Have Novels, Will travel.”

 

 

Posted in science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Women of the Wall: fighting inequality and discrimination at every opportunity

Posted on April 20, 2013 by Steve Caplan

Two of the most heated topics that are avidly discussed by OT members in recent blogs are gender equality and anti-Semitism—both worthy of serious consideration—and not mutually exclusive.

As those who know me will attest, I am not a big fan of organized religion—or for that matter of religion itself. Not to offend anyone, but to my rational way of thinking—I cannot view religious belief as more than superstition. Now, I have had formal training in Jewish philosophy, so I know that those who ‘believe’ do need to take the ‘leap of faith’—after all, that’s what it’s all about—religion is the relinquishment of rationalism for belief.

Having said that, unfortunately I have also had too much experience with friends suffering from tragedy, illness and loss to understand that for some, religion and belief can be a tremendous consolation for those who are bereaved or suffering. So, who am I to criticize it if it helps them through difficult times? It would be like knocking the placebo effect. If the placebo is effective, then why not take advantage of it? But for me, of course, there is no placebo effect. One needs to believe in the placebo for it to work.

In any case, religion is a personal matter, and I fully recognize the rights of any group to their own beliefs (as long as they accord the very same respect to non-believers). Unfortunately, this tolerance for others is not always the case.

I’m sure most readers will have heard of the Western Wall or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, as it is sometimes known. This is thought to be a remaining wall of the courtyard to the second Temple (built ~19 BC), and is considered the most holy site for Jews.

Since Israel has been unable/unwilling to separate religion and state, the Wall has become a contentious area. This is because it is administered by the Rabbinate in Israel—an institution that fails to recognize any forms of Judaism, aside from the ultra-orthodox stream. Effectively, this means that the majority of Jews outside of Israel—those who belong to the conservative and reform congregations—are basically excluded from the agenda.

In fact, Israel’s former 67 year-old president—a purely symbolic position (analogous to the monarchy in the UK) and who by the way is now in jail for rape—was famous for his refusal to address the head of the American Union for Reform Judaism and acknowledge him as Rabbi Eric Yoffie.

Due to the control of the Wall by the orthodox rabbinate, there has been continual discrimination against women. On the other hand, the Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism have long ago moved to an egalitarian system, where women have become equal partners in religion, and a growing number of communities sport head rabbis who are female. This, of course, is no less than heresy to the ultra-orthodox, who would probably even prefer atheists like me—who at least don’t pose a threat to their authority over the Wall and religion within the State of Israel.

One group in Israel that has been committed to advancing the religious and overall rights of women is known as “The Women of the Wall.”

To begin, at the Wall itself, there is enforced gender separation, as for the orthodox, women pose a threat, due to their ‘provocative sexual nature’ and due to their ‘uncleanliness.’ Accordingly, a small fringe area of the Wall is currently designated for the other half of the population.

The Women of the Wall group has been instrumental in continuing to fight for both gender equality and to fight religious discrimination (albeit, not the classic form of anti-Semitism). Equipped with prayer shawls and religious apparel that are typically reserved for men in the orthodox community, they faithfully come to pray at the Wall every month, enduring dark discrimination from the orthodox, and even arrests by the Israeli police.

Perhaps after so many years of discrimination, there is a possibility of some change, based on a new proposal by former Soviet-refusenik Natan Sharansky, who now chairs the Jewish Agency. However, being a cell biologist, for me seeing is believing—and in this case, I’ll believe it when I see it.

In the meantime, I hope that all of our bloggers and readers will remain united as a group that is committed to bettering our world by supporting equality and fighting discrimination wherever we can.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Hi tech solutions for building demolition/renovation

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Steve Caplan

photo

I just hope they left the right people alone in the correct room!

Posted in humor | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

New meanings for protein structures-combining art and science

Posted on April 11, 2013 by Steve Caplan

I have been blogging on and off these past couple years about science and art, art and science. And all of the sudden I came across this phenomenal art form by Ph.D. student, Maja Klevanski, as depicted in a feature story in the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology’s Today magazine (see page 12 of the PDF).

But I do not want to be a spoiler and ruin the fun: please, open her website and see for yourself, how protein structures can be ‘double entendres!’ Hint: don’t miss the “sick rat enjoying a piece of tart!”

Posted in humor, research, science | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The scientist as a squirrel

Posted on April 3, 2013 by Steve Caplan

What does one need to obtain grant funding in these tough times?

*Overcoming obstacles
*Fierce determination
*Exceptional creativity and ingenuity
*Proof of feasibility
*Above all, persistence and resilience

In short, behave like this squirrel that entertained us all through dinner.

Posted in humor, research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Are scientists becoming an endangered species? The way we live–now

Posted on March 30, 2013 by Steve Caplan

What spurred me to put pen-to-paper, if that phrase has any remaining meaning, was reading about the recent proposals at the US National Institutes of Health to again revamp the grant review system. The previous revamp, just several years ago, changed the rules so that instead of 2 possible resubmissions of a given proposal, only the initial submission and one revision could be submitted. After that stage, researchers would need to present a significantly different proposal, if they expect their grant to be reviewed. The issue of what significantly different means, and whether it is even feasible for a researcher to significantly change research areas/strategies in the absence of funding, is a matter for a significantly different blog. But we shall leave it at that, for now.

The new idea being batted around would hold that either the grant is funded on the first attempt, or the scientist would need to quit and do something else. Retirement and golf, come to mind. No resubmissions or modifications would be allowed.

Now this isn’t just akin to putting a band aid/plaster on an arterial wound; it’s actually not even putting the band aid on the correct part of the body!

I would like to discuss the way the scientists live–now–in this age of uncertainty. So if you are interested, bear with me as I ramble my way to the point.

As a short aside, my portion of the title “The way we live–now” is derived from having recently watched (for the second time) the BBC’s production of Anthony Trollope’s “The Way We Live Now” with a stunning performance by David ‘Hercule Poirot’ Suchet as the Shylock-like Jew-swindler, Augustus Melmotte. The story brings to light the anti-Semitism of the times–despite Disraeli being Prime Minister, as Melmotte’s pyramid-Ponzi schemes are derailed by his own ambition to settle down and become “one of them;” a respected English nobleman.

Perhaps the most poignant anti-Semitic event is portrayed when a young women of a noble (but cash-poor) English family is engaged to an older, wealthy Jewish banker. When he finally realizes her prejudice and releases her from the engagement, she is horrified at having been ‘jilted by a Jew.’ In the light of rants made by English Lords and famous actors (Ahmed and Gibson, to name a few), sometimes one wonders how much has really changed.

As another interesting aside, I was debating the possibility that the enigmatic figure Cromercrox might have actually invented the town of Cromer. However, the town must have been in existence for many years, for the seaside town of Cromer is mentioned as a possible retreat in the film.

Back to the way we scientists, at least in the US, live now. Well one does not need a Ph.D. in mathematics or economics to figure out the problem: the number of researchers and grant proposals being submitted continues to grow annually, whereas the pot of money used to support these researchers and their research remains the same, or drops slightly. Especially if inflation is figured into the equation. Net result: it’s becoming more and more difficult to obtain grant funding.

This is the reason that grant reviewers are finding themselves in impossible situations. If the funding level is somewhere at 7 or 8%, can reviewers possibly distinguish between the ‘quality’ of the 8th percentile grant and the 12th percentile grant? A frequent comment that comes up is “whether the research aims–if achieved–will end up being taught in textbooks.”

Is this the way to go? Is science not built brick upon brick? Should scientists be punished for following up an initial key finding by drudging through the solid, time-consuming and careful science that needs to be done before the next ‘breakthrough’ can be achieved?

All of this leads back to the initial problem. A band-aid or new format of review will not solve the problem. In fact, it’s a waste of time. There are only three options:

1)   Status quo–researchers and science suffer from lack of funding and impossible situations, which will lead to poor morale and loss of a generation of scientists. This is the evolutionary view of scientists–survival of the fittest.

2)  Increase the pool of money allocated to research to support research grants (best option!).

3)  Decrease the number of researchers in science. Stop hiring. Effectively, this would be similar to the status quo, because this will happen if the current situation isn’t improved.

It’s time for the public to act, and it’s time for scientists to fight. Without this, we are clearly on our way to becoming an endangered species.

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Let My People Go!

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Steve Caplan

This evening being Passover, and me being an admitted anti-socialite Israelite who eschews any connection with organized religion–I find it necessary to search for my own unique way to celebrate. This year, the onset of this holiday, the celebration of the escape of the Jews from slavery in Egypt (whether this actually happened historically is another matter altogether) coincidentally coincided with the completion of an advanced draft of my next novel: “Let My People Go!”

“Let My People Go!“ is my first attempt to write primarily from the perspective of a female protagonist–something I had been warned against, and therefore absolutely had to try. It is also an attempt to combine serious literary fiction–of the Lab Lit genre–with a touch of mystery.

This is a story that I hope will resonate particularly well with graduate students, because it deals with a crisis between student and graduate adviser–a very common crisis over the proposed time frame for a student’s Ph.D. dissertation and final examination–and hence the title “Let My People Go!”

Not wanting to spoil any of the story, I will leave off with my draft of the short prolog to “Let My People Go!”

Prolog

9 a.m. Fri. Dec. 7, 2012

            Maya, Michael, Shelley and Mr. Robson sat huddled together in the courtroom at the defense table. As Defense Attorney Peters had predicted, the cautious judge had not been happy at the idea of having new evidence presented in his court at this late stage of the trial. However, he had agreed to meet with counsel for prosecution and defense at 8 a.m., to render a decision about the admissibility of the evidence.

“They’re back!”

Maya’s knees were shaking as she climbed to her feet. She kept her eyes firmly fixed on Michael’s back, hoping that he wouldn’t turn and see the tears flowing from her eyes. On her left, she could feel the presence of the old man beside her that she had dragged into the courtroom this morning. To her right, Shelley leaned over and put an arm around Maya’s sagging shoulders. “It’ll be okay, Maya, I just know it will,” she whispered.

The two lawyers, Prosecutor Ramsey, and Defense Attorney Peters entered the courtroom, followed slowly by Judge Allan Davis. They had just come from their unexpected and brief encounter in the judge’s chambers. Maya could not read Peters’ face. While the judge was busy shuffling his papers, she leaned over toward Peters. “Will he allow the new evidence?”

“He didn’t say,” whispered Peters. “He understood the circumstances, and I think he realizes that the evidence has direct bearing on the case. But judges hate last minute evidence.” He paused and took a deep breath. “If he’ll just allow us to present it to him in court now, I’m sure he’ll see fit to have us enlighten the jury about our new evidence, too.”

Judge Davis banged his gavel and cleared his throat. “As you know, I have met with counsel from the prosecution and the defense to evaluate a rather unusual request by the defense to submit new evidence.” He pointed toward Peters. “At this late stage of the trial. It is now incumbent upon me to make that decision.”

Shelley whispered again, “It’ll be okay, Maya. He’ll allow the new evidence on Michael’s behalf—I just know he will.”

But Maya wasn’t sure.

Posted in research, science | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Parental pride–and a lesson in resilience by a brilliant scientist

Posted on March 10, 2013 by Steve Caplan

When I answered my phone this past week, I found myself frequently saying, “Caplan’s Cabbies.” My partner being out of town leaves me ‘in the driver’s seat,’ literally and figuratively, regarding all of the extracurricular activities of my children. As well as the ‘intracurricular’ ones.

One such activity was my son’s school speech contest, held at the school on Friday at 1:15 p.m. The head honcho of Caplan’s Cabbies was up at 6 a.m. (actually a tad later than usual), and off to take my daughter to school by about 7:15. Since my son’s school begins only at 8 a.m., we have been frequenting a bagel-coffee shop for half an hour before heading to his school.

This Friday morning was scheduled to be a very busy one for me, and as I dropped my son off, I promised to be back before his speech–which would be the 12th of 15. I was not sure if I’d make all of the earlier speeches, but was determined to be there for his speech.

There was no exercise time for me this morning. Straight to work for a meeting with a faculty candidate, followed by sequential meetings with students applying for admissions to graduate programs on campus. Combined with the usual and growing pile of other administrative  concerns–and of course running the lab, completing papers, grant and manuscript reviews, and so on…

So far the traffic looked promising, and I was confident that I would make the meeting on time with the faculty candidate at 8:30. And then the phone rang–my son had forgot his ‘nice clothes’ in the backseat of the car (I told him to put it in his backpack). Could Caplan’s Cabbies turn around and bring the clothes back to school?

Using all of my parental superpowers, a series of calculations raced through my mind. London Cabbies beware–Caplan Cabbies have supercomputer brains! Quickly, I realized that there was no way to possibly get him the clothes and get to the meeting on time. Brilliant thinking. Only a genius could figure that out! So I discarded some of my plans and came up with the radical decision: I would get to the meeting on time, but leave the campus even earlier, to give my son his clothes before the start of the competition. Make a short day even shorter. Such is life…

Nonetheless, I was not disappointed. I heard 15 speeches on the topic of “Someone who has overcome.” All of them unique, interesting, well written and researched, and presented to the best of each child’s abilities–in front of a room full of people. No easy task, and certainly a wonderful training exercise for kids to prepare them or perhaps immunize them (?) against the fears of public speaking. A handy skill to master in elementary school.

The winning speech, I can proudly report, belonged to my son.

Eylon-speech 2013

He chose Stephen Hawking as his model for “someone who has overcome.” And for anyone interested, this was the winning speech (below), verbatim. On to the district championships!

How would you feel if you couldn’t talk? When you had a question, you wouldn’t be able to ask it. When you had something important to say, you wouldn’t be able say it. Now think; what if you couldn’t move? You could purposefully move absolutely no muscles except for a little bit of twitching. Think about using the restroom, bathing, eating, and sleeping. You would need to have a personal assistant with you every minute of every day to help you with everything you do!

You would have to be pretty unlucky if you had one of these symptoms, but some people are very unfortunate and have both paralysis and aphasia. One of these people is Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist who was born 1942 in Oxford, England. When he was little, he and his family lived in England. When he attended elementary school he wasn’t always a good student. Even at an early age, he excelled in math and science, but failed at most other subjects. Later, he went to college at Oxford University—one of the world’s best universities—and studied physics for three years saying it was “ boring and easy.” During his years at Oxford, his voice became slightly slurred, and he had many accidents in which he fell down stairs.

He later attended Cambridge University—another world-class university—and continued his studies with theoretical physics. When he was 21 years old, he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. ALS is a disease that disables the victim and prevents him from moving any of his muscles. When he was diagnosed, the doctors told him that he had 2 years to live. Today Stephen Hawking is still living, so he has therefore exceeded the doctor’s expectations by about 50 years so far. That’s incredible! It’s too bad Stephen didn’t know that at the time, because when he found out that he had the disease, he sank into a deep depression.

He recovered from the depression when he became engaged to Jane Wilde. He married her and he returned to his studies enthusiastically. Despite the fact that Stephen Hawking suffered from ALS, he still managed to obtain his Ph.D. and later his professorship in the subject of mathematics from Cambridge University. Hawking was and is a brilliant theoretical physicist and mathematician, and discovered the fact that black holes give off radiation, which is now called Hawking Radiation. He has also written many scientific papers, and has published myriad books as well.
How could someone with ALS possibly achieve all this?

Well, first off, we have to think about his courage. Many people with ALS would sink into a depression and barely eat, sleep, and live. As I noted, Stephen Hawking also became depressed. However, he was able to overcome his depression and unbelievably difficult physical situation and he succeeded in becoming a great person. Without trying, he would have never been able to get anywhere. Then there’s also his absolute brilliance, though without courage his great ideas would be stuck in his head forever. Can you imagine how that would feel? He was also determined to continue no matter what. That is the obstacle that Stephen Hawking has overcome.

On a more specific level, we may ask how Stephen Hawking overcomes his communication problems. A man from California Tech engineered a system that allows him to talk. Stephen’s glasses have a light sensor attached to them and a screen in front of him. By twitching his cheeks, he can scroll through words on the screen and choose which words he wants. A voice synthesizer says the words for him. He says that only thing he doesn’t like about it is that it gives him an American accent. In most television shows that he appears in, he is asked questions prior to the show’s airing. On his computer, he can compile and save speeches, phrases, and sentences.

Now we all have to thank Stephen Hawking for what he has done for the world. Not only because of the scientific discoveries that he has made, but also because of the inspiration he has given us all. So the next time you’re down in the dumps, just remember how much Stephen Hawking has accomplished; even through all of his troubles. Just remember that you can still make a difference.

 

 

Posted in Education, research, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Science education: the generalist vs the specialist

Posted on March 3, 2013 by Steve Caplan

Well, here I am. I promised. No funny pictures and weird self-promotion campaigns. Just a blog about a topic that might interest some of us in the sciences.

I was discussing the writing of an “Introduction” for a paper with a student in the lab recently. I found the discussion strikingly reminiscent of the discussion that I had had just days earlier with my 11 year old son, who was in the process of writing a 3-5 minute speech for a school contest. Just as an aside, he chose Stephen Hawking as ‘someone who had overcome great obstacles.’ A wonderful choice, in my view, and I am learning a lot about this fascinating and brilliant scientist.

Back to the point: my advice in both cases was to start broad, and slowly narrow down and zoom in to the topic in question. So for the ‘Introduction,’ I suggested to plan out the writing with an outline, where the first paragraph addressed the topic in the most general manner, and the subsequent paragraphs gradually focused the reader until he/she was familiar with the overall background, and finally the explicit research question or hypothesis being tested–before launching into the ‘Results.’

And with this little bit of background, like a story within a story, I am finally ready to get to the point of this little blog–to address the generalist vs. specialist philosophy in university education. More specifically, I ask whether a broad-based 4-year university education is better than a more focused 3-year education. I know this will be relevant to those of you on the wrong side of the pond, because my understanding is that 3-year programs are the rule–as was the case for my own undergraduate studies in Jerusalem.

There is a joke about people who specialize–that they know more and more about less and less–until they know a whole lot about nothing. Whether that is the case or not, I think the 3-year vs. 4-year system deserves some thought.

In countries such as Israel, with a compulsory 3-year military service for men (and 2 years for women), the university students tend to be older and more mature than students who have come directly from high school. In many cases Israeli students have traveled abroad after the military and worked to support themselves through university–so knocking off a year from tuition and joining the work force (or continuing on to higher degrees) more quickly makes sense.

On the other hand, most US students come directly from high school. Many have never worked and often have barely been away from their parents/home, so the university experience is as much a social experience as it is educational. But even more importantly, many students really have not arrived at a stage where they can easily make up their minds about what they want to do for the rest of their lives. For this reason, the extra year, the ability to change a major and take in a broad array of courses–can be a distinct advantage.

In my undergraduate studies, the ‘biology’ program was a structured program of 3 very intense years. First year had me taking courses in advanced calculus, computer programming (Pascal–anyone remember that?!), inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, physical chemistry, physics–and wonder of wonders–in the second semester, finally exposure to ‘biology’ with a course in biochemistry. With all the labs added on, and the chemistry and physics running both semesters, there was no time to add on any additional courses. I was doing all I could to survive.

In truth, having always been interested in philosophy, I enrolled in a course that was at 4 p.m. on the one day when I didn’t have labs that went on until late in the evening. It was at the other campus, and I had to take two buses–almost an hour–to get there. It wasn’t particularly difficult, and I was enjoying the change of scenery, but soon realized that it was impinging on my time studying organic chemistry. So I dropped the philosophy.

In my particular case, being an avid reader with a wide range of interests, and having already read and studied philosophy on my own, it probably wasn’t a great loss. But the situation did highlight the emphasis on early specialization.

As a student, I did have the honor of attending a couple of lectures by the famous Dr. Yeshayahu Leibowitz. I believe that he was in his mid-eighties at the time–a legendary doctor, philosopher, neurologist, embryologist, chemist and controversial political activist. Deeply religious, Dr. Leibowitz was unusual for his left-wing views and conclusions that the occupation of Palestinian territory is unethical. He was clearly ahead of his time.

I bring up the case of Leibowitz because such a degree of wide expertise is practically unheard of. This is not only because people of Leibowitz’s caliber are few and far in between, but also because in today’s world, early career specialization is almost a prerequisite for success. And not just in academia.

Children who don’t begin skating or playing football well before the age of 6 or 7 are probably never going to be professional hockey or football players. You can’t learn chess at my age, as I’ve tried to do, and expect to make master rank. If you begin at age 5 or 6, and you are good, it’s certainly possible. But if you want to excel in chess, those piano lessons might take up too much of your time—and you can’t even dream of being a concert pianist without starting music lessons and playing at an early age.

But back to topic again. Does a 4 year program ultimately prepare one better for a career in the sciences? From my personal experience, as well as that as a Graduate/Admissions Committee Chair and lecturer in our biochemistry program, my answer is ‘not necessarily.’ I’ve seen 4-year students with such a dispersed and unfocused background in the hard sciences that they are weakly prepared for graduate school. I’ve also seen 3-year program graduates with such a high degree of focus that they seem to have lost their ability to think creatively.

So what is the answer? I think it depends a lot on the individual. In my case, I probably would have resented being forced to take courses in literature and history (which I love, but chose not to study) at the expense of science. In my case, specialization and a strong background in science has served me well. But I’m also aware that for many others, this might not be the ultimate solution.

Posted in Education, research, science | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments