Life Science Tools of the Trade

After much debate on whether I wanted to see Body Worlds 2 or not, I found myself at the exhibit at the Museum of Science in Boston.

Three of us, all females, went to the exhibit and each of us had a different take on the experience. Of the three, the non-scientist seemed to find it the most educational and fascinating. The nurse found it interesting on a professional level and a bit disturbing on a more personal level. I, the research scientist, found it more disturbing than educational.

For those of you who don’t know, Body Worlds is Gunter von Hagen’s exhibit that has been traveling around the world since 1996. He uses, plastination, a unique method to preserve human specimens – from organs to whole bodies. In a simplistic view, the process involves removing all the bodily fluids and replacing them with resins which harden when cured.

That’s a little bit about the process. Let me explain a bit more about the exhibit itself. Glass cases containing different plastinated organs were set up in the middle of the rooms. Healthy lungs vs. lungs with black lung. Healthy heart valves compared to diseased. Metastasized tumors. So on and so forth. This part of the exhibit I found interesting – visually seeing why you should take care of your body. It was the whole body plastinates that I found disturbing.

Each body was positioned to focus in on a particular system in the body. The nervous system, the cardiovascular system, the skeletal system, etc… Each pose was selected to highlight certain anatomical features. I’m not saying these specimens weren’t interesting at some level. They were. How muscles are connected, what the spinal chord looks like, how the nerves run, the capillaries… it was pretty amazing. So, why did I find the exhibit disturbing?

…the nagging voice in my head that kept telling me I was looking at real human beings. These bodies were someone’s mother or father or child. To me, and this is my personal opinion, I found it disrespectful to both the individual and their families. Gross anatomy labs, I understand the purpose and benefit. Body Worlds, I just don’t.

All that said, check it out for yourself.  http://www.bodyworlds.com/index.html

It is amusing to watch the twists and turns on the  SAB.  Recently, in  a SAB forum a question arose about tissue culture media and buffering.  Somehow it devolved into advice about adding Glutamax instead of glutamine to the media. The logic goes like this? My cells are growing well, perhaps too fast, because the media became acidic after only a few days. What role does glutamine play in buffering my media (whispered aside #1……..none-that is what the C02 and sodium bicarb are for). Unrelated advice is offered “Oh, you need to add glutamine every two weeks (whispered aside #2…….no you do not)! Why don’t you try glutamax!”     “Great! I didn’t know my cells were starving! Where do you get it? (whispered aside #3……..google it but you don’t need it!)    Perhaps a problem was solved with that helpful bit of advice but it certainly wasn’t this problem.  Another satisfied customer!  Hey, does anyone know some good software to design primers?

SAB Rant: cood u plez uz cmplete wrdz when u post!?!

Recent concert: Richard Buckner at Local 506

Recent meal: Grilled octopus and sea scallops at Magnolia Grill (the best restaurant in this area)

On the record player: John Dee Graham  “Full”

Reading: Woody Guthrie Artwork  (a collection of drawings and journal entries)

It is a common practice for labs to have small informal lab meetings.  The presenter spends some part of the morning of the presentation pulling autorads out of lab notebooks, preparing a few overheads and graphing some data. How much background do I have to give for a summer student? Did I present this data last time? Should I present data that contradicts a lab member’s data? Are dead projects worth mentioning? I wonder if there will be tasty snacks?

Half the group already knows the data, the problems and the progress (or lack of) because they work on aspects of the project and the other half doesn’t really care. 

I just got back from attending a retrovirus meeting up in Connecticut.  The science was good, the people were great, and the food… well, there was just way too much!

I’ve never seen a meeting where the food just kept on coming.  Breakfast was bagels, muffins, fruit and cereal.  That was directly followed by snacks of nachos, chocolate covered pretzels, cracker jacks and peanuts.  Another hour or two of talks and then lunch, Italian style.  Pasta, Chicken parm, salad, soup, ice cream…  A few more talks and then baked goodies.  Another session of talks and then it was dinner time.  AND that was just for one of the days.

Like I said… way too much food.

Science is a tough job. Daily failures, not so friendly competition and the constant pressure to produce aren’t exactly spirit boosters. Everybody has bad days, everybody hates their job sometimes, everybody hates their boss somedays, everybody hates their project when it doesn’t work.  Then there are the true malcontents who  hate their job, the lab, every single day. Loudly proclaiming how hard they worked when they were motivated, how nobody in the lab is any good (including their friends) and the constant threat to leave that never materializes.  The bad thing about science is the transient nature of realtionships with students/post-docs/etc. The good thing about science can be the transient nature of relationships with students/post-docs/etc.

I’m not sure why this recent back to school advertisement caught my eye.  How many kids are setting their locker combination to RNASE in 7th grade? SWEET!

Was it a random event or a bitter joke from a failed scientist who now does photo layouts for office supply stores?

 World record for SPAM eating:

6 pounds of SPAM from the can

12 minutes

Richard LeFevre