Equinox of Insanity

[Update: Yes, I misspelled the word "Nobel" a couple of times (since corrected). I blame that mistake on my being in the process of learning how to type using the Dvorak keyboard layout, which has turned out to be brutally difficult to do, and has majorly decreased my typing ability. Also, I'm an idiot.]

The winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine were announced today, with the winners being those that developed gene knockouts, which are integral in biological research.

That’s interesting in itself, but what jumped out at me in The New York Times article on this is the personal story of Dr. Mario Capecchi.

When he decided to leave Harvard because members of the department did not get along and did not recruit sufficient younger scientists, Dr. Capecchi chose to go to Utah in 1973. Colleagues told him, he said, that he was “nuts” to leave Harvard’s Ivy League splendor. But Dr. Capecchi said Dr. Watson told him he could do good science anywhere. Dr. Capecchi said the main advantage was that he could work on long-term projects more easily in Utah than at Harvard where there was a push to get results quickly. Dr. Capecchi said that when he re-applied to the N.I.H. in 1984 for the grant it had rejected in 1980, he was told, “We are glad you didn’t follow our advice.”

Those three paragraphs refer to three of the biggest problems existing in the field of biological research:

1. A wide-spread lack of support for younger scientists.
2. A wide-spread push for immediately applicable (marketable?) results.
3. Insane granting policies at the NIH, most likely the result of ridiculously poor funding by the government.

Also, Harvard is full of douchebags, put that’s not specific to the science departments.

Overall, the article is a great read, partly because Capecchi’s life is facinating, but also kinda because of the science.

A Brief Note on The Times

Astute (anal?) readers might have noticed that The Times wrote “N.I.H.” and I wrote “NIH” (without periods). Technically, I’m right, as the NIH itself doesn’t use periods. The Times, however, has a set policy to always use periods in abbreviations, regardless of their necessity, which I think is stupid. Quite frankly, I think periods in abbreviations are always stupid, and I officially denounce them (periods in abbreviations, not The Times). Oooooooo… burn!

Tags: Science

This entry was posted on Monday, October 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.