I was at the pub last night with a two friends of mine from undergraduate years gone by; we all did a bachelor of science, and while I’ve been doing a PhD in biology, they both started dentistry degrees. While the prospect of looking into someone’s mouth and picking at teeth for a living does not appeal to me, the financial security of dentistry is pretty attractive to a PhD student facing a career as an overqualified dole bludger.
While I listened to my friends talk about probing gum lines, drilling teeth and making moulds for toothless old men, I began to appreciate the degree of manual dexterity needed for a profession such as dentistry. In fact, until only recently, one of the entrance tests for graduate dentistry involved bending a wire into a predetermined shape using pliers. This might seem like a strange benchmark to set for prospective dentists, but if given the choice, I would definitely prefer to visit a dentist who could control a pair of pliers over one who couldn’t.
It got me thinking about the types of hand-eye coordination I need for my research. Fine dissection skills, pipetting into small tubes, handling dangerous chemicals without spilling them. Sure, there are a thousand and one (often annoying) OH&S precautions for preventing accidents in the lab, but the main thing stopping you from dropping that large vial of carcinogenic liquid you’re carrying is your own dexterity and care.
Of course, not everyone is blessed with the fine motor skills necessary to be a dentist or a surgeon. There are probably few who would object to excluding the coordination-challenged from holding sharp pointy things near people’s faces or performing organ transplants. People’s welfare and lives are in the hands of these health professionals.
By the same logic, perhaps there should be a “no klutzes allowed” screening process before scientists be allowed to work in a laboratory. I’m not saying that I’ve never had an accident in the lab, everyone makes mistakes, but there is potentially nothing worse than working in the lab with someone pathologically clumsy.
Observing severe lab klutzes at work can be like watching the proverbial bull in a china shop. Lab partners of serious klutzes may become adept at stopping accidents before they occur, using simple phrases such as “hey, that’s okay, I can carry that huge bottle of sulphuric acid. By the way, how did your dent exam go?”
While working with a lab klutz can also be a serious risk to one’s mental health, it may also be a “character building” experience. Repeating experiments after someone dropped a week’s worth of your samples can only make you a stronger person, right?
Do you work in the lab with an extreme klutz? Was your chemistry lab partner in undergrad a complete liability? Alternatively, for those who suspect they might be the culprit of more than their fair share of lab accidents, you can meet like-minded people on Facebook.
Dear Bridget,
ReplyDeleteMy brother in law who received a dentistry degree while in Detroit had to do many tests, such as bending wires or carving 3D objects out of soap. Those that didn't reach a certain standard failed (although, I wonder how it was assessed). It is funny how there are few tests such as these in the more pure scientific profession. However, I have heard of things like competitions for titrating acids, etc. Furthermore, those lizard ovaries (or in my case shoot apices and ovaries) aren't just going to pop out for you to examine them. We had to pass honours, masters etc. by developing/improving these skills (there is some technique to dexterity, yes/no?). Although I believe these situations are equal to carving soap, I feel they end up less recognised because it is in a different, or far from formal, context; this is is kind of unfortunate, and perhaps might be related to the money thing...
Hi Trev! My suggestion for formal coordination training to work in the lab was more tongue-in-cheek than anything, but it is certainly frustrating to work with people who mess up your stuff. I do agree, however, that the skills we have as scientists are certainly less recognised by the general public than the skills of medical doctors, dentists, etc. mainly because our work rarely has a direct impact on the average person.
ReplyDeleteHow about a lab partner who is a lazy, thieving incompetent hiding his malfeasance behind a thin veneer of principle? *Calms down* Happened to me in first year computer science.
ReplyDeleteHmm, lazy lab partners are definitely a whole different kettle of fish. Group work in any first year subject is always going to build character!
ReplyDeletePerhaps biologists should be required to scrape the plaque from a death adders fang. Survival and production of aforementioned plaque = pass!
ReplyDeleteHi Bridge!!
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why i clicked on your link.... i think it was the muppets picture.
But, I think i would have made a great lab partner ;)
It looks like you are doing great!! hope your still playing footy!
x
p.s no prizes for guessing - it is penno!!!
ReplyDelete- i think 'anonymous' was the only option for me...
As one of these mentioned friends doing dentistry (Paul), I quite enjoyed reading this. I agree that it is scary having people work in your mouth, and you would like to know that the dentist has good hand eye co-ordination. Thus the first two years of the course are used to build up those skills, plenty of pre-clinical practice on plastic and extracted teeth, with remediation sessions for those who aren't up to scratch. Multiple exams need to be passed, and those who don't will fail the year.
ReplyDeleteI guess its better to select the people who are bright enough, and who have the right personality for the course, when the hand skills can be taught later. Rather than culling those people from the start.
From working in a lab for a couple of years as well, I suppose that you soon gain good hand skills if you don't have them already (due to repeating the same experiment until you don't stuff it up!)
Keep up the blogs!
cheers,
Paul