Traps and Other Thoughts

For what it's worth, I think I've finally realized that when all is said and done, plans don't really mean much. I'm not saying that planning ahead is bad, because preparedness is a necessary thing, but rather I'm talking about the expectations we set and the way we envision things happening for ourselves. Because with every interaction we participate in, with every connection we make, things can be affirmed or they can be altered. I can walk out of an encounter with a more sure conviction of exactly what it is I am doing. Or, I could walk out having had my ideas completely taken apart, giving me a blank slate to work with, being wiser with knowledge of what previously contained error.

This past Tuesday was our large informational thesis committee meeting and it was quite apparent that my vision going into the meeting did not exactly match how I saw things upon its completion. We didn't have much time to get into the details of my topic and research question but I didn't really mind that because I had already met with each of my mentors (except for anyone who was not available) individually to lay the groundwork of what my goals and objectives are. For this reason, I thought I had done myself and them a favor in the sense that everybody should have been on the same page by the time the meeting came around. But it was not exactly as I expected. Although they understood my work and progress relatively well, they seemed to have a problem with my approach to the paper.

But let me backtrack for a second - The first thing I did before even thinking about emailing my committee was write up an abstract. In my initial draft, I had a combination of colloquial terms and the raw scientific language. After showing it to some people at Albany Med though, I learned that scientific writing has certain rules which if broken, could invalidate my work. For example, a phrase such as "larger picture" was a big no-no for the reason that it was too broad, too qualitative and had no direct impact upon the experiment I was conducting and the results I was expecting. Another thing was the word "ablation." Because this term is used primarily to describe things in the cardiological realm of medicine, I could not use it when speaking about neuroscience. As you can imagine, this news threw me for a loop because the only way I have been able to communicate my thoughts and ideas in the past has been primarily through analogies and metaphors that people can relate to in order to understand what I was trying to say. But despite my instinctual attachment to those literary devices, I tried my very best to purge the abstract of anything non-scientific.

And here's where I hit an obstacle. There's a trap, I know it well, of taking this to a level too intense where I may lose more than I could gain. It's one of those traps that when you end up falling into it, you think, "I knew that was going to happen." And I only say that because I know if a doctor tells me my writing needs to be more scientific, I will deliver such style without any doubts in my mind. But the most vital thing I have to remember is that there is a fatal possibility of taking this too far. I'm still in high school and that means now isn't necessarily the time to focus on becoming a "true" scientist. That's going to come later on, but the point is some things such as being a more clear communicator, working through better questions, developing a sense of independence and power over my own learning, are all skills I have to work on building up now, when I have the place to do that. The trap I referred to earlier, that would simply be constituted by any temptation to forgo this necessary and foundational skill set - for example, making all my writing purely scientific. Although that's not to say my paper won't be written in a formal and generally scientific way but as always, balance is needed.

The only reason I mention the abstract is because my falling into the "trap" was cause for a little bit of confusion in our committee meeting. The members felt as though my writing was too esoteric. Of course this was before reading my journals and working through those expanded explanations so I'm not sure the meeting was the most fair assessment of my transparency but I digress. In a nutshell, the problem that they saw come to the forefront was my inability to explain things simply in the abstract. I don't wish to make excuses for myself because I know that communication is an area in which I struggle quite a bit but from my understanding, I thought an abstract was supposed to state the very specific goal of a study, the general experimental design, and what resulted. At least from the literature I've read, abstracts don't go into explanations or much beyond a sentence or two concerning the interpretation of results. But then again, I guess those same questions resurface - what purpose is this paper to serve and who is my audience? Because if I am truly focused on developing all of those skills I mentioned above, then I might have to tone it down with the science. But my problem with this is that I refuse to believe I must choose one or the other. Is it such a bad thing that I want my paper to be written in a formally scientific way? I believe my journals have done an adequate job at providing analogies and metaphors to guide people through my process. Of course, I would do my best to explain things well in the paper also but I think there is something to be said about the niche of my work.

This year, for the first time, I'm really not talking about humans. I'm starting at the lowest rung in the ladder of biological organization and trying to work my way up. Yes, what I'm testing has implications and possible extrapolations to humans, but that is not the main purpose of my study. Granted, it seems necessary that this fact influences who I am writing this for and what purpose readers should have in mind. So that's for me to really think about as I go forward with my introduction.

Within this particular discussion, it was suggested that I write two versions of my thesis - one for the science world and one for those who do not have a scientific background. While this would pose a wonderful challenge and I am actually considering it, there is once again a trap here. My trepidation with this particular path is that I could end up spreading myself too thin and come out with two mediocre papers instead of one good paper. I don't want to write two versions for the sake of adding another notch to my belt, or to try and reach more people because frankly, I don't expect any random non-science person to really care about what I come up with. I imagine outsiders would only want to know how any particular conclusion will directly affect them. But I'm not saying anything definitive about the human nervous system, I won't even be able to say anything definitive about C. Elegans' nervous system. If I write two versions of my paper, I want it to be because I can progress efficiently and extract value from the experience.

Other than that, we didn't have time to discuss much more information/logistics. My introduction is currently in progress and I'm hoping to gather the full committee for a meeting covering the abstract, introduction, and a preview of my research methods in mid October. For this meeting, I really want to try and gather everyone because I think it's important for that dialogue to be had as a collective group. While they ask many great questions in individual meetings, I want them to be able to interact with one another in the process as I'm sure this will reveal to me the most pressing concerns.

So I guess to summarize, it feels like we are off to a bit of a rocky start but I hope that after reading my journals and spending a little more time on my site in addition to individual meetings I have with my mentors, we can get everyone up to speed (more so than the first time I tried doing that). I suppose my plan hasn't changed in the sense that I am still asking the same question and exploring the same things but my approach to conveying all of that information may have to experience some enhancement.

I appreciate and respect and admire those on my committee - that's why I chose them - and I truly hope that we can all make this work. I know that this is going to be a journey of dynamicity and it will test my adaptability but I think I'm up for the challenge. As long as my committee is giving me feedback and evaluating even the smallest detail, there will be progress and there will be learning.