Locator: 48365CHIPS.
************************
The Book Page
From One Cell: A Journey Into Life's Origins And The Future Of Medicine, Ben Stanger, 2023.
Audience: summer reading for high school juniors and seniors planning to major in one of the many biologic disciplines.
I haven't finished this book but I'm pretty sure I know all the science incorporated in this book.
However, the history of the discoveries leading to all this science is fascinating. Some of it I knew, but very, very little.
It is amazing how serendipity plays/played such a huge role in scientific discoveries.
Most striking for me, however, is that many of the discoveries were made through intuition alone. A particular scientist makes a huge leap and all of a sudden everything becomes clear.
Exhibit A: the author talks about Johann Mendel, the monk and the green/yellow - smooth/wrinkled peas. Between 1856 and 1863, Mendel examined some 30,000 plants scoring their visible phenotypes and looking for patterns. Somewhere along the line Mendel -- a non-mathematician -- formulated an algebraic model which I've never seen and the author didn't provide; I've always using the classic Punnett square. How Mendel made that leap from observations and narrative descriptions to a Punnett square is beyond me. It's obvious in hindsight, but ...
Similarly, the development of the Periodic Table. A huge, huge intuitive leap by Mendeleev.
Similarly, the schematic for benzene. A snake swallowing its tale.
Similarly, the DNA model proposed by watsonandcrick.
I have a 15-minute binder that I use to tutor Sophia, the same concept I used for her older sisters. One of those two older sisters will graduate from Vanderbilt this next year after completing a highly sought internship in Washington, DC, this summer. The other will be starting Stanford University this autumn on a full scholarship.
I will be adding three pages to the 15-minute binder: the Periodic Table, the Standard Model of Fundamental Particles; and the Punnett square.
*****************************
Medical School
It's interesting. In the 1970s, medical schools had different philosophies with regard to how to teach medicine.
Harvard University had one method; the University of Southern California had another method. Both are top-notch medical schools. Looking back on the method, the former was more "educational"; the the later, more "training."
Generally speaking, all medical schools are very similar: the first two years, didactic; the third and fourth years, clinical.
Back in the 70s, Harvard Medical school really, really, really emphasized didactics -- lectures followed by max time spent in the library, self-guiding education. USC, on the other hand, lectures followed by max time on the medical / surgical units, spending time with patients.
After reading Ben Stanger's From One Cell, I would argue that either method is fine, but they tend to attract different types of students and lead to different outcomes. The former: more research-oriented; longer life in medicine; less likely risk of early burnout. The latter: more outcome-oriented; reach one's "pinnacle" sooner but then not "grow" further; an increased risk of early burnout.
In the undergraduate years, I wonder if the "UC-Santa Cruz method" might not have been an interesting way of educating high functioning students in biology or chemistry. I don't know how they do it now, but when I was last there, decades ago, it was my impression the first year was a yearlong survey of all the laboratory sciences, incredibly rigorous year of studying 24/7 but no lab. At the end of that year, the undergraduate student would sit down with a professor to discuss a "question" to answer in the lab for the next three years. One the "question" to be asked had been formulated the student would be farmed out to graduate student TA's with quarterly meetings with the professor.
****************************
Recipes: Crock Pot Brisket and Sweet Bell Peppers Saute
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.