Author: David Chung Loo

When I first learned about the three science senses  that were repeatedly mentioned in the course, I was not really thrilled to use it. Eventually, I realized these senses are simply angles of looking at events in our lives. When dealing with numbers, we use our number sense. When describing observations, we can use data sense. When we try to form conclusions or speculations, we can use knowledge sense. All these perspectives help us build a framework around our course as we learn that science is closely tied to our lives.

We learned this message again when we worked on the health innovation. As we tried to come up with innovations or alternate uses of existing products, we tried to address issues affecting people or our families. What was interesting in this project that took a few months was that we made use of 3D printing. I personally love using 3D printing. The project taught us how to use Tinkercad–something we can add on our resume–and taught us to not give up when our ideas are turned down. It also taught us to consider designs in a scientific perspective; it needs to be plausible and helpful. When attending the STEAM festival, I thought about how I panicked during the beginning of the semester and how surprised I was when I was there. I actually made it with a working, approved design.

Although I enjoyed the course overall, I did not really find the Bioblitz very consistent with the flow of the course. It appears to just be an assignment forced in by Macaulay (this may be true). Then again, going out to visit nature is a fun experience, though it could be better incorporated.

Besides all the educational aspects, what I enjoyed most about this class were the aspirin and soap lab, as well as, the “That Chemistry Show.” Because the first lab involved a lab report, I enjoyed the second lab more. I haven’t been in a lab since high school. Following instructions, watching everyone fail to produce pure aspirin, cleaning up the lab utensils, and getting to the 8th floor when it was almost 2:30PM were all events that lead to a calm, enjoyable environment. The Chemistry show was quite fun to watch. However, I was disappointed because not everyone went. Compared to the previous IDC courses, IDC 4001H lacked the group outings that made each visit to places better.

Finally, thank you Dr. Greer and Jake for being lenient, critical, friendly and understanding!

Doing a lab in school exposes students to the idea of experimentation. When students prepare materials, follow procedures, observe and record data, and reach conclusions, they learn about the world and different approaches to exploring nature. Not only does it serve a pedagogical purpose, it also increases students’ interests in the class. Reading textbooks and listening to lectures might not be enough to keep students’ attention because the material could be boring. However, when students are brought to a lab and get to doing experiments, it gives students a new experience. In addition, doing labs converts ideas, principles, and the theories into practical use. I would hope to understand the world better with doing labs rather than being told through reading others’ work.

In a non-specialist science course, labs are not necessary because there are other methods to teach. Videos, projects, and presentations are useful. That is not to say we should not have labs. Having labs would be fun to have and it might help explain concepts. Compared to a specialist science course, non-specialist science course focuses on specific uses of science. In our case, IDC 3002H focuses a lot on medication innovations and collection of data. “Lab” in non-science courses would be specific to the courses in question. A history course might have a field trip to an important historical location for the lab. It might be an emulation of historical events, like the Boston Tea Party. An American literature course might have a play for the lab. Romeo and Juliet or Julius Caesar could be lab events. I consider anything that allows students to explore the material personally and physically to be equivalent to a lab.

When assembling a report for a lab, using the same style of academic writing for an English or history class would raise the question about what type of information is needed. In an English class, a reflection of feelings might be appropriate, but not for a scientific report. The latter should include procedures and writing about errors. In a history class, chronological order of events might be useful, but it lacks the data recorded in a scientific report. Finally, the structure of the lab report makes it different from an English essay or history essay. A scientific lab report has sections that contain different information. The essays are usually coherent bodies, which make essays different from lab reports.

Lab reports are based on experiments, but in a school setting, it is rare for experiments to be novel. Usually, experiments published by other scientists are reused and students observe results of previously completed experiments. I hope that students will design their own experiments and enjoy the pleasure of doing something original.

Reading “The New Mystery – Maybe Miracle – Drug” gives a strong contrast to modern New York Times article. I find the article to be really long. I was thinking “If this is the popular article, then how long is the journal article.” Compared to modern science popular articles that I read, this 1971 article contains thorough evidence and higher level complexity. I can see many instances of knowledge sense and data sense, when the author describes the research and its importance. I see number sense when the author shows the level of success in the induction of labor or abortion. I liked the fact that the statistical data is not overwhelming, but just enough to see the function of prostaglandins. The many findings and questions seem to leave the question unanswered, leading to stronger interests. As described in the article, research is not simple finding, but an exploration through facts that can last many years and through the hands of other scientists. An example of what I mean is Professor Ulf S. von Euler encouraging a younger colleague to continue his work.

Looking at the placement of the molecular drawings and images of scientists, I find that the pictures correspond to the text rather than appear as a chronology of history. Mentioning Dr. Sultan H. M. Karim, a scientist who studied the hormone in the 1960s first, Galton establishes why is this hormone worth the research. The next two scientists who had pictures printed on this article are Professor Ulf S. von Euler and Professor Sune Bergstrom. Both scientists made major contribution to prostaglandins, but one was from the 1930s and the other from the 1950s. While both scientists were before Dr. Karim, Galton chooses to present them after. His decision to do might be that Galton wants to present a path of discovery rather than facts. Overlapping scientists from different time is used to help convey the idea that through many years of research, the pieces of the puzzle are built one by one, leading to a product waiting to be changed up again. In this way, the author writes using a less fixed structure, opting for a structure where he can add more connections and research evidence. This story-telling style makes the article more interesting to read. The information and facts provided becomes details that enrich the main idea, rather than being burdensome.

After reading this article I realized that I underestimated the abilities of the freelance writers of New York Times. If the level of requirements for popular articles today is the same as that of 1970s, then the level of information in each article is worth a read.