Exploring Biomedical Research--Honors Seminar
Exploring Biomedical Research is an Honors Seminar offered during the spring semester at the UC College of Medicine. Open to all students, the curriculum aims to introduce students to the immense progress and promising future of research in molecular genetics to personalized medicine. Weekly meetings and discussions in a small-group, all-questions-welcomed setting encouraged exploration, inquiry, critical thinking, and reflection. Following is a group essay--written collaboratively--that shares similar opinions and thoughts about the course and what we, as a group, learned. This essay was written by the combined efforts of a group in order to solidify the importance of communication and teamwork in the world of research.
Course Reflection
Sam Perry, Melissa Johns, Greg Bell, Aron Bercz, Megan Dunlevy
Beginnings are often surrounded by countless emotions and thoughts: excitement and trepidation, curiosities and expectations, among others. Often, individuals have a vague preconception of what lies ahead, but really the only certainty in the future is that the path will deviate from what was originally perceived. In many cases, reality will deviate from expectations, be it for better or for worse. This trend holds true for our expectations, as students, for this course.
When deciding to register for this seminar in biomedical research, expectations played a large role in our decisions. It would be fair to say, firstly, that the majority of us in this group were attracted to the seminar because we all have an interest in medicine and science either in the clinical setting or in the laboratory. Based on the name of the course—Exploring Biomedical Research—we expected that we would be exposed to the world of research as it related to medicine: how research leads to clinical applications, what researchers and Ph.Ds. do on a daily basis, how a typical lab is structured and functions. In terms of these expectations, it is fair to say that, although some aspects may have been more heavily emphasized than others, this expectation was generally fulfilled. We certainly saw how laboratory research over time can have impacts on patient care and what the typical research laboratory looks like.
On the other hand, we truthfully expected that the course would be comprised with more clinical research. Many of us are interested in pursuing MD or other medical degrees, so we typically immediately think of research in terms of patient care and clinical aspects of medicine, not necessarily the scientific research world of medicine. That is not to say that we do not appreciate or are not interested in the research aspects of medicine; many of us are interested in research and scientific investigation and understand its integral nature to the world of medicine. As a group, though, we had expected that we would be exposed to more of the clinical aspects, such as the experience with Dr. Warnick and the demonstration of surgical techniques. In terms of the orientation of the topics (i.e. medical vs. research), therefore, the class differed from what we had expected upon registration.
Just as many of us in this group are interested in pursuing medical degrees, we are all also first year students at the University of Cincinnati. As a result, this course is for many of us our first Honors seminar. Although we could not base our expectation on previous experience, therefore, we still had some expectations on the format for the class. Given that we knew the class was going to be relatively small, we expected there to be lots of discussion, accompanied by a strong community. In terms of reality, these expectations varied slightly. While we did have discussions, they were not a lively as anticipated and the sense of community only grew strong towards the end of the semester. This experience, however, could help us better navigate small class settings in the future.
Overall, coming into the class we all had different—yet remarkably similar—expectations. We were slightly apprehensive about what would be expected of us in terms of knowledge, participation, attire, professionalism, time commitment, etc. While some of these expectations varied from the reality of the class, most of them were for the good. Most of us, for example, expected the workload to be much heavier than it was. Therefore, it would be fair to claim that the course met our general expectations and was a pleasant experience.
Although to some it may have seemed like this course covered many unrelated topics, most all of the topics were interconnect in one way or another. During the seminar on model organisms, a fantastic remark on scientific discovery was made, which essentially said that the strength of science is that a discovery in, say, biophysics or biochemistry could lead to a discovery in genetics, which could in turn play a role in cancer biology. This statement clearly indicates that, across all the scientific topics covered in this course, they all can be connected in some manner.
As a group we agreed that the overarching theme of the course revolved around cancer—its genetic, molecular, and cellular origins and its treatments. Naturally the discussions about the required reading, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, and the sessions on cancer related directly to this topic. In other applications, the meetings on stem cells and neurological tumors also related to cancer. The information covered during the vector core day also related to cancer, as it involved using specific genetic therapies to directly target problematic genes. When recapping each seminar session, it would be fairly simple to connect the science to cancer in some form.
Another identifiable theme of the course was genetics. As has become evident in the past decades, genetics is becoming an ever increasing focus in medicine: both in diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, it seems fitting that it would be a heavy theme in this course. In the context of cancer, genetics has played a huge role in the scientific understand of the disease process. Since genetics and cancer are so heavily linked and the cancer theme was so profoundly stressed in this course, a study in genetics naturally followed. The main themes covered in genetics involved mutations, sequencing, types of genes and their functions, and genetic therapy options.
Many other sub-themes, as it were (such as the research process, basic pathways and genes, and general biology) could be identified in the course, but it may be more appropriate to categorize them more generally. Generally, these topics could be categorized as science and research knowledge. Certain themes in science, such as DNA and specific genes, signaling pathways, and certain molecules were recurrent in many discussions. These themes would fall under the general science knowledge catch-all. The research knowledge umbrella would cover much of the non-scientific matters. How to analyze data, the logistics of administrating a laboratory, asking inquisitive questions and working collaboratively would all be examples of this research theme.
Although other themes certainly exist throughout the course, these were the main themes that we identified. The most interesting aspect relating to these themes was how the lectures built on each other. Be this progression intentional or otherwise, lectures later in the sequence tended to relate to information gained in the previous sessions, which reinforces the idea that even though the lectures were technically on different topics, the information and themes for each topic is shared across many scientific disciplines.
The different lectures throughout the course stood out in their own ways; some contained interaction and some concepts resonated more than others. As we are all first year undergraduates taking this course, our prior backgrounds on the content that was covered were limited. These limitations made it difficult for the presenters to present material to undergraduates clearly, some doing a better job than others. We felt that the lectures later in the semester were more readily followed, partially because some information was reoccurring from the prior lectures indicating themes of focus, and partially because we were getting used to the style of the course.
In the first week, Dr. Miller’s style of presentation, illustrating his discussion while also giving out a handout, seemed to be a good way to clearly get his information across. Dr. Miller was able to solidly introduce concepts of how manipulating base pair mutations could be beneficial and it was fascinating when he mentioned that using modified HIV cells could help cure cancer. It was the concepts like this that stuck in the back of our minds throughout the course. Next, Dr. Starczynowski’s focus on cancer research provided a clear and specific example of how cancer develops and how to approach curing it. The ability to talk with his lab assistants at Cincinnati Children’s was a good opportunity to answer our beginning questions on what cancer research was like. His lecture seemed to be at the appropriate level and this allowed the information presented to be understood, increasing our interests.
Dr. Keddache, Dr. Cushion, and Dr. Hardcastle engaged the class more, allowing us to fully understand the material and reflect on it through ethics questions. The debatable topics and cases allowed for constructive interaction, especially when thinking about its clinical research effects, which was useful and important to us. After that, the discussion of personal genomics by Dr. Menon and Dr. Myers seemed a little harder to follow. Some of us became lost in detail and it was not as interesting, as the topic did not seem as engaging as the similar topic the previous week.
The lecture by Dr. Meller and Dr. Weirauch had a different type of lecture that mainly applied to the biomedical engineer prospective. The process of thinking like a computer was needed and many of us were not used to that way of thinking, causing the information to be unclear. In the following week, Dr. Mayhew’s lecture covered stem cells, which we were all familiar with, allowing the material to be understood without too much difficulty. Stem cells were important to discuss in the course, but it was already well-known with current publicity, so it could have been more beneficial to be included in the other threads when relevant instead of by itself.
Dr. Malik re-introduced material about using viruses in gene therapy and clarity was not an issue and questions were able to be formulated. Meanwhile, the tour given by Dr. Van Der Loo’s cleanroom tour was an eye opener and we found this part of the course to be remarkable, but logical and understandable. Dr. Haynes public health discussion kept our interests, as it was concerned with matters close to home. Her interactions with the industries under review were noteworthy and her speech was definitely within our level and the general topic of public health was useful to learn about for our futures.
We felt that Dr. Plas did a great job relating specific parts of chromosomes and their disorders to the risk of disease. His cancer genomics activity was great, as it dealt with fresh research for analysis and allowed everyone to become involved and comprehend the information. He also tied in his lecture with different parts of The Emperor of All Maladies very well, which was important to the course. Meanwhile, Dr. Ralph, Dr. Weiss, and Dr. Dean discussed entrepreneurship in research as a class discussion, but it felt like the three were just discussing amongst themselves and everyone else was just there listening. The style was not very useful and the topics of patents did not feel like it was all that relevant to us at the time.
After spring break, Dr. Herr presented and connected us as a class when we presented interesting information about ourselves. The class was able to connect with and understand one another better after this. His research discussion focused on the potential M.D./ Ph.D. route that was available for graduate students. It was good that we became aware of this option, increasing our interests in graduate school. During the following lecture, Dr. Hong discussed circadian rhythms, which was interesting at first, but it seemed to drag on. After that, the model organism thread presented by Dr. Cook and Dr. Zorn displayed useful information on why model organisms are researchers today. The concepts of finding ideal model organisms for today’s research were presented clearly, as it was broken down well in their presentations.
Dr. Warnick’s meeting was the most interesting and most interactive thread of the class, finishing the class on a great note. The images and demonstrations allowed for an understanding of the material, as Dr. Warnick was clear and concise, while peaking our interests. The thread enjoyable, especially when some of us got to perform a craniotomy ourselves.
In general, we found Dr. Warnick’s and Dr. Plas’s presentations as our favorites, mainly because of the unique interactions, while the entrepreneurship thread seemed to be the least interesting. Dr. Miller, Dr. Starczynowski, and Dr. Warnick were pretty easy to follow, while Dr. Menon and Dr. Meller presented in styles that made the information harder to grasp.
Since we were reading Siddhartha Mukherjee’s The Emperor of All Maladies, cancer was clearly one of our overarching themes throughout the whole semester. As a result, all the class sessions that were related to cancer research fit in quite nicely and complemented each other. Dr. Starczynowski’s lecture gave us a good introduction and overview of cancer at the beginning of the semester which helped set the stage for later discussions over both the book and cancer research. Given the recent progress in research involving DNA and genome sequencing, the multiple sessions on genetics were also reinforced by their connection to possible cancer treatments using targeted gene therapy. Sessions like Dr. Mayhew’s on stem cells and Dr. Menon and Dr. Myers’ presentations on personal genetics showcased the new technologies that are now available in diagnosing and treating cancer providing links to topics mentioned in The Emperor of All Maladies. As many would probably agree, Dr. Warnick’s session on neurosurgery and the treatment of gliomas was certainly the best way to wrap up our class by providing an excellent end and a sense of closure to our exploration of cancer treatment.
As already mentioned, investigation of research in genetics was another common thread throughout the semester. Our sessions on personal genetics, stem cells, and gene therapy were all interconnected and we felt that it was especially beneficial to have these classes in a consecutive fashion; since we still remembered what we had learned from the previous class sessions, we felt that we were better able to understand what subsequent speakers were talking about and build off of what we already knew. Meanwhile, the session on model organisms did not specifically focus on cancer research, but it still fit in nicely with our overall theme of the process of biomedical research as did Dr. Herr’s introduction to the M.D./Ph.D. program here at the University of Cincinnati. As future researchers, we will need to be familiar with different model organisms and the M.D./Ph.D. program is something a few members of the class who aspire to be physician scientists might be considering.
On the other hand, there were a few sessions that we felt did not really have any clear associations with any of the other topics we had previously covered. One was the session on entrepreneurship which was not particularly intriguing to many of us and which we did not see as having much to do with actually performing biomedical research. Many of us are more interested in pursuing a clinical career and entrepreneurship just did not fit our interests. Another session that lacked clear connections to other components of this course was Dr. Hong’s lecture on circadian rhythms; there were not many common threads relating to cancer, genetics, or any other major subject we had gone over. These sessions sometimes shared common sub-topics such as cell signaling pathways, mutations in DNA, and basic biological concepts – all common themes seen in science and research. However, in comparison to the tightly interwoven cancer and genetics sessions we had, these classes just felt more isolated and disconnected.
Although the most of the sessions could be related back to the cancer as the overlying theme of the class the sessions did cover a wide range topics. Most of the major subject areas such as DNA and genome sequencing, stem cells, personal genetics, and gene therapy. All of these subjects are new and exciting to the field of research and we found it interesting to learn about the frontrunners of biomedical research. Even with the wide range of topics covered, we believe that some major subjects were left out. We believe that a session on infectious disease and a session on immunology should have been included in the course instead of the sessions on entrepreneurship and Dr. Hong`s lecture on circadian rhythms.
Immune disorders such as autoimmune diseases are becoming increasingly more common and as a result Immunology is growing rapidly as a medical specialty. As most of us plan on pursuing a MD it would have been thrilling to hear on lecture on a field on medicine instead of hearing a lecture that focuses more strictly on a field on research. We also believe a session on immunology would have been very relatable as immune disorders receive quite a lot of publicity.
A session on infectious disease would have also been a excellent addition to the course. The developed world may not see very much of the traditional evils of infectious disease like malaria, tuberculosis, and so many others but these disease still effect and in some cases run rampant in Third World countries. There are also more antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria such as MRSA than we have ever seen before. It would have been interesting to see how those resistant strains are being treated in the clinic and what researchers believe is the next treatment options will be. Dr. Herr touched on this concept briefly when he was discussing his research with bio-films. We wish that there could have a been a session that would go into more detail than what Dr. Herr had time for.
Although it is not a specific subject area of research or science, we believe that the first meeting of the class should have laid down and explained some of the most basic and fundamental lab techniques like Western blotting, PCR, Gel electrophoresis, DNA isolation, DNA purification, and cell culture. Going in to the sessions with this basic knowledge of lab techniques we believe would have allowed us to understand and get more out of the sessions since we would have had an idea of the techniques that were used to generate the speakers research.
Going into this course, we had a basic idea of what to expect. Of course, we did not expect the class size to be large, unlike our other courses such as general chemistry and biology. We also expected to hear about various fields of biomedical research, and to engage in scientific conversation.
We were surprised by how complicated most of the content of the presentations were. Some of us figured that after taking AP biology and a full semester of college biology, we would have a pretty strong understanding of what the researchers were talking about. However, we found that a lot of the presentation content was difficult to grasp, and difficult to ask good questions about. It was humbling to realize how much genetics and biochemistry was left still to learn, and how far away we are from becoming biomedical professionals. Without much background or preparation, it was difficult at times to understand the complete picture. Consequently, we were surprised that most of the presenters did make us read up on their research beforehand, in order to prepare.
One of the class meetings that surprised us was the one on entrepreneurship with Dr. Ralph, Dr. Weiss, and Dr. Dean. This meeting was definitely different than the others, as these speakers focused more on the business side of research, such as obtaining patents and grants, rather than their personal research ideas.
One of the biggest surprises of the course was the final meeting, with Dr. Warnick. Prior to his presentation, the vast majority of the guest speakers focused on research and working in a laboratory. It was a nice change of pace to listen to someone in the clinical setting, and listen to his take on being an M.D. and how research affects his career. What made Dr. Warnick’s presentation even more surprising was the fact that he took us into an anatomy lab, and talked through case studies and how he would approach various surgeries. As if that was not enough of a surprise, the fact he allowed us place burr holes into the cadaver’s skull was astonishing. It was a surreal experience to use surgical equipment, and to practice a skill that is learned during a surgical residency. The ensuing book club discussion and question and answer session with Dr. Warnick ended an incredible class. The entire experience of the final meeting was a surprise in it of itself.
Participation in this course gave each of us tremendous exposure to careers in the biomedical field. It is fair to say that well over half of the class is passionate about being a physician in the future. However, with many of our guest speakers holding positions in research and academia, we could not help but consider what it would be like to explore a career in these fields. The field of biomedical science is very diverse, and requires the interactions of physicians, researchers, engineers, and mathematicians to name a few. If everyone wanted to be a physician and work in a clinical setting, then other invaluable biomedical occupations would be overlooked, and the field as a whole would suffer.
Throughout the semester, our speakers presented us with multiple career options to explore. Ben Stoyak presented about public health, and introduced the idea of pursuing a Masters in public health. This would appeal to many of us interested in the health sciences, and would be a great degree to have going into medical or graduate school. In addition, Dr. Herr among others made references to the medical scientist training program (MD-PhD) at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. While this program requires a lot of time and effort, many of us may be interested in becoming a medical scientist in order to apply the research that we would perform to a clinical setting. Those of us who have a genuine interest in research and science would find this program very rewarding.
A major theme of this course was cancer, and we learned about the history of cancer treatment, and what modern cancer research is like. Subsequently, some of us may be inspired to research a form of cancer, and develop the next therapeutic agent. Also, the field of stem cell research and cell potency is rapidly growing, and great discoveries are waiting to be made. This area of research may be of particular interest to our class due to its novelty, and great impact on medicine. Many of us may not have had much exposure to biomedical research, and this class painted a good image of what research is like. Most of us leave this class with a much better of idea of biomedical research, and can lead us to obtain research positions in the coming years.
Biomedical science is an exciting and expanding field. It is important to remember that physicians cannot save and treat patients alone; they need the help of researchers and the use of fundamental science. This course showed us that we are capable of being much more than just physicians. We can be physicians with a strong knowledge of public health, engineering, and basic science. There is so much to learn and discover, and each of us is lucky to have the opportunity to take part in this golden age of science and research.
When deciding to register for this seminar in biomedical research, expectations played a large role in our decisions. It would be fair to say, firstly, that the majority of us in this group were attracted to the seminar because we all have an interest in medicine and science either in the clinical setting or in the laboratory. Based on the name of the course—Exploring Biomedical Research—we expected that we would be exposed to the world of research as it related to medicine: how research leads to clinical applications, what researchers and Ph.Ds. do on a daily basis, how a typical lab is structured and functions. In terms of these expectations, it is fair to say that, although some aspects may have been more heavily emphasized than others, this expectation was generally fulfilled. We certainly saw how laboratory research over time can have impacts on patient care and what the typical research laboratory looks like.
On the other hand, we truthfully expected that the course would be comprised with more clinical research. Many of us are interested in pursuing MD or other medical degrees, so we typically immediately think of research in terms of patient care and clinical aspects of medicine, not necessarily the scientific research world of medicine. That is not to say that we do not appreciate or are not interested in the research aspects of medicine; many of us are interested in research and scientific investigation and understand its integral nature to the world of medicine. As a group, though, we had expected that we would be exposed to more of the clinical aspects, such as the experience with Dr. Warnick and the demonstration of surgical techniques. In terms of the orientation of the topics (i.e. medical vs. research), therefore, the class differed from what we had expected upon registration.
Just as many of us in this group are interested in pursuing medical degrees, we are all also first year students at the University of Cincinnati. As a result, this course is for many of us our first Honors seminar. Although we could not base our expectation on previous experience, therefore, we still had some expectations on the format for the class. Given that we knew the class was going to be relatively small, we expected there to be lots of discussion, accompanied by a strong community. In terms of reality, these expectations varied slightly. While we did have discussions, they were not a lively as anticipated and the sense of community only grew strong towards the end of the semester. This experience, however, could help us better navigate small class settings in the future.
Overall, coming into the class we all had different—yet remarkably similar—expectations. We were slightly apprehensive about what would be expected of us in terms of knowledge, participation, attire, professionalism, time commitment, etc. While some of these expectations varied from the reality of the class, most of them were for the good. Most of us, for example, expected the workload to be much heavier than it was. Therefore, it would be fair to claim that the course met our general expectations and was a pleasant experience.
Although to some it may have seemed like this course covered many unrelated topics, most all of the topics were interconnect in one way or another. During the seminar on model organisms, a fantastic remark on scientific discovery was made, which essentially said that the strength of science is that a discovery in, say, biophysics or biochemistry could lead to a discovery in genetics, which could in turn play a role in cancer biology. This statement clearly indicates that, across all the scientific topics covered in this course, they all can be connected in some manner.
As a group we agreed that the overarching theme of the course revolved around cancer—its genetic, molecular, and cellular origins and its treatments. Naturally the discussions about the required reading, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, and the sessions on cancer related directly to this topic. In other applications, the meetings on stem cells and neurological tumors also related to cancer. The information covered during the vector core day also related to cancer, as it involved using specific genetic therapies to directly target problematic genes. When recapping each seminar session, it would be fairly simple to connect the science to cancer in some form.
Another identifiable theme of the course was genetics. As has become evident in the past decades, genetics is becoming an ever increasing focus in medicine: both in diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, it seems fitting that it would be a heavy theme in this course. In the context of cancer, genetics has played a huge role in the scientific understand of the disease process. Since genetics and cancer are so heavily linked and the cancer theme was so profoundly stressed in this course, a study in genetics naturally followed. The main themes covered in genetics involved mutations, sequencing, types of genes and their functions, and genetic therapy options.
Many other sub-themes, as it were (such as the research process, basic pathways and genes, and general biology) could be identified in the course, but it may be more appropriate to categorize them more generally. Generally, these topics could be categorized as science and research knowledge. Certain themes in science, such as DNA and specific genes, signaling pathways, and certain molecules were recurrent in many discussions. These themes would fall under the general science knowledge catch-all. The research knowledge umbrella would cover much of the non-scientific matters. How to analyze data, the logistics of administrating a laboratory, asking inquisitive questions and working collaboratively would all be examples of this research theme.
Although other themes certainly exist throughout the course, these were the main themes that we identified. The most interesting aspect relating to these themes was how the lectures built on each other. Be this progression intentional or otherwise, lectures later in the sequence tended to relate to information gained in the previous sessions, which reinforces the idea that even though the lectures were technically on different topics, the information and themes for each topic is shared across many scientific disciplines.
The different lectures throughout the course stood out in their own ways; some contained interaction and some concepts resonated more than others. As we are all first year undergraduates taking this course, our prior backgrounds on the content that was covered were limited. These limitations made it difficult for the presenters to present material to undergraduates clearly, some doing a better job than others. We felt that the lectures later in the semester were more readily followed, partially because some information was reoccurring from the prior lectures indicating themes of focus, and partially because we were getting used to the style of the course.
In the first week, Dr. Miller’s style of presentation, illustrating his discussion while also giving out a handout, seemed to be a good way to clearly get his information across. Dr. Miller was able to solidly introduce concepts of how manipulating base pair mutations could be beneficial and it was fascinating when he mentioned that using modified HIV cells could help cure cancer. It was the concepts like this that stuck in the back of our minds throughout the course. Next, Dr. Starczynowski’s focus on cancer research provided a clear and specific example of how cancer develops and how to approach curing it. The ability to talk with his lab assistants at Cincinnati Children’s was a good opportunity to answer our beginning questions on what cancer research was like. His lecture seemed to be at the appropriate level and this allowed the information presented to be understood, increasing our interests.
Dr. Keddache, Dr. Cushion, and Dr. Hardcastle engaged the class more, allowing us to fully understand the material and reflect on it through ethics questions. The debatable topics and cases allowed for constructive interaction, especially when thinking about its clinical research effects, which was useful and important to us. After that, the discussion of personal genomics by Dr. Menon and Dr. Myers seemed a little harder to follow. Some of us became lost in detail and it was not as interesting, as the topic did not seem as engaging as the similar topic the previous week.
The lecture by Dr. Meller and Dr. Weirauch had a different type of lecture that mainly applied to the biomedical engineer prospective. The process of thinking like a computer was needed and many of us were not used to that way of thinking, causing the information to be unclear. In the following week, Dr. Mayhew’s lecture covered stem cells, which we were all familiar with, allowing the material to be understood without too much difficulty. Stem cells were important to discuss in the course, but it was already well-known with current publicity, so it could have been more beneficial to be included in the other threads when relevant instead of by itself.
Dr. Malik re-introduced material about using viruses in gene therapy and clarity was not an issue and questions were able to be formulated. Meanwhile, the tour given by Dr. Van Der Loo’s cleanroom tour was an eye opener and we found this part of the course to be remarkable, but logical and understandable. Dr. Haynes public health discussion kept our interests, as it was concerned with matters close to home. Her interactions with the industries under review were noteworthy and her speech was definitely within our level and the general topic of public health was useful to learn about for our futures.
We felt that Dr. Plas did a great job relating specific parts of chromosomes and their disorders to the risk of disease. His cancer genomics activity was great, as it dealt with fresh research for analysis and allowed everyone to become involved and comprehend the information. He also tied in his lecture with different parts of The Emperor of All Maladies very well, which was important to the course. Meanwhile, Dr. Ralph, Dr. Weiss, and Dr. Dean discussed entrepreneurship in research as a class discussion, but it felt like the three were just discussing amongst themselves and everyone else was just there listening. The style was not very useful and the topics of patents did not feel like it was all that relevant to us at the time.
After spring break, Dr. Herr presented and connected us as a class when we presented interesting information about ourselves. The class was able to connect with and understand one another better after this. His research discussion focused on the potential M.D./ Ph.D. route that was available for graduate students. It was good that we became aware of this option, increasing our interests in graduate school. During the following lecture, Dr. Hong discussed circadian rhythms, which was interesting at first, but it seemed to drag on. After that, the model organism thread presented by Dr. Cook and Dr. Zorn displayed useful information on why model organisms are researchers today. The concepts of finding ideal model organisms for today’s research were presented clearly, as it was broken down well in their presentations.
Dr. Warnick’s meeting was the most interesting and most interactive thread of the class, finishing the class on a great note. The images and demonstrations allowed for an understanding of the material, as Dr. Warnick was clear and concise, while peaking our interests. The thread enjoyable, especially when some of us got to perform a craniotomy ourselves.
In general, we found Dr. Warnick’s and Dr. Plas’s presentations as our favorites, mainly because of the unique interactions, while the entrepreneurship thread seemed to be the least interesting. Dr. Miller, Dr. Starczynowski, and Dr. Warnick were pretty easy to follow, while Dr. Menon and Dr. Meller presented in styles that made the information harder to grasp.
Since we were reading Siddhartha Mukherjee’s The Emperor of All Maladies, cancer was clearly one of our overarching themes throughout the whole semester. As a result, all the class sessions that were related to cancer research fit in quite nicely and complemented each other. Dr. Starczynowski’s lecture gave us a good introduction and overview of cancer at the beginning of the semester which helped set the stage for later discussions over both the book and cancer research. Given the recent progress in research involving DNA and genome sequencing, the multiple sessions on genetics were also reinforced by their connection to possible cancer treatments using targeted gene therapy. Sessions like Dr. Mayhew’s on stem cells and Dr. Menon and Dr. Myers’ presentations on personal genetics showcased the new technologies that are now available in diagnosing and treating cancer providing links to topics mentioned in The Emperor of All Maladies. As many would probably agree, Dr. Warnick’s session on neurosurgery and the treatment of gliomas was certainly the best way to wrap up our class by providing an excellent end and a sense of closure to our exploration of cancer treatment.
As already mentioned, investigation of research in genetics was another common thread throughout the semester. Our sessions on personal genetics, stem cells, and gene therapy were all interconnected and we felt that it was especially beneficial to have these classes in a consecutive fashion; since we still remembered what we had learned from the previous class sessions, we felt that we were better able to understand what subsequent speakers were talking about and build off of what we already knew. Meanwhile, the session on model organisms did not specifically focus on cancer research, but it still fit in nicely with our overall theme of the process of biomedical research as did Dr. Herr’s introduction to the M.D./Ph.D. program here at the University of Cincinnati. As future researchers, we will need to be familiar with different model organisms and the M.D./Ph.D. program is something a few members of the class who aspire to be physician scientists might be considering.
On the other hand, there were a few sessions that we felt did not really have any clear associations with any of the other topics we had previously covered. One was the session on entrepreneurship which was not particularly intriguing to many of us and which we did not see as having much to do with actually performing biomedical research. Many of us are more interested in pursuing a clinical career and entrepreneurship just did not fit our interests. Another session that lacked clear connections to other components of this course was Dr. Hong’s lecture on circadian rhythms; there were not many common threads relating to cancer, genetics, or any other major subject we had gone over. These sessions sometimes shared common sub-topics such as cell signaling pathways, mutations in DNA, and basic biological concepts – all common themes seen in science and research. However, in comparison to the tightly interwoven cancer and genetics sessions we had, these classes just felt more isolated and disconnected.
Although the most of the sessions could be related back to the cancer as the overlying theme of the class the sessions did cover a wide range topics. Most of the major subject areas such as DNA and genome sequencing, stem cells, personal genetics, and gene therapy. All of these subjects are new and exciting to the field of research and we found it interesting to learn about the frontrunners of biomedical research. Even with the wide range of topics covered, we believe that some major subjects were left out. We believe that a session on infectious disease and a session on immunology should have been included in the course instead of the sessions on entrepreneurship and Dr. Hong`s lecture on circadian rhythms.
Immune disorders such as autoimmune diseases are becoming increasingly more common and as a result Immunology is growing rapidly as a medical specialty. As most of us plan on pursuing a MD it would have been thrilling to hear on lecture on a field on medicine instead of hearing a lecture that focuses more strictly on a field on research. We also believe a session on immunology would have been very relatable as immune disorders receive quite a lot of publicity.
A session on infectious disease would have also been a excellent addition to the course. The developed world may not see very much of the traditional evils of infectious disease like malaria, tuberculosis, and so many others but these disease still effect and in some cases run rampant in Third World countries. There are also more antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria such as MRSA than we have ever seen before. It would have been interesting to see how those resistant strains are being treated in the clinic and what researchers believe is the next treatment options will be. Dr. Herr touched on this concept briefly when he was discussing his research with bio-films. We wish that there could have a been a session that would go into more detail than what Dr. Herr had time for.
Although it is not a specific subject area of research or science, we believe that the first meeting of the class should have laid down and explained some of the most basic and fundamental lab techniques like Western blotting, PCR, Gel electrophoresis, DNA isolation, DNA purification, and cell culture. Going in to the sessions with this basic knowledge of lab techniques we believe would have allowed us to understand and get more out of the sessions since we would have had an idea of the techniques that were used to generate the speakers research.
Going into this course, we had a basic idea of what to expect. Of course, we did not expect the class size to be large, unlike our other courses such as general chemistry and biology. We also expected to hear about various fields of biomedical research, and to engage in scientific conversation.
We were surprised by how complicated most of the content of the presentations were. Some of us figured that after taking AP biology and a full semester of college biology, we would have a pretty strong understanding of what the researchers were talking about. However, we found that a lot of the presentation content was difficult to grasp, and difficult to ask good questions about. It was humbling to realize how much genetics and biochemistry was left still to learn, and how far away we are from becoming biomedical professionals. Without much background or preparation, it was difficult at times to understand the complete picture. Consequently, we were surprised that most of the presenters did make us read up on their research beforehand, in order to prepare.
One of the class meetings that surprised us was the one on entrepreneurship with Dr. Ralph, Dr. Weiss, and Dr. Dean. This meeting was definitely different than the others, as these speakers focused more on the business side of research, such as obtaining patents and grants, rather than their personal research ideas.
One of the biggest surprises of the course was the final meeting, with Dr. Warnick. Prior to his presentation, the vast majority of the guest speakers focused on research and working in a laboratory. It was a nice change of pace to listen to someone in the clinical setting, and listen to his take on being an M.D. and how research affects his career. What made Dr. Warnick’s presentation even more surprising was the fact that he took us into an anatomy lab, and talked through case studies and how he would approach various surgeries. As if that was not enough of a surprise, the fact he allowed us place burr holes into the cadaver’s skull was astonishing. It was a surreal experience to use surgical equipment, and to practice a skill that is learned during a surgical residency. The ensuing book club discussion and question and answer session with Dr. Warnick ended an incredible class. The entire experience of the final meeting was a surprise in it of itself.
Participation in this course gave each of us tremendous exposure to careers in the biomedical field. It is fair to say that well over half of the class is passionate about being a physician in the future. However, with many of our guest speakers holding positions in research and academia, we could not help but consider what it would be like to explore a career in these fields. The field of biomedical science is very diverse, and requires the interactions of physicians, researchers, engineers, and mathematicians to name a few. If everyone wanted to be a physician and work in a clinical setting, then other invaluable biomedical occupations would be overlooked, and the field as a whole would suffer.
Throughout the semester, our speakers presented us with multiple career options to explore. Ben Stoyak presented about public health, and introduced the idea of pursuing a Masters in public health. This would appeal to many of us interested in the health sciences, and would be a great degree to have going into medical or graduate school. In addition, Dr. Herr among others made references to the medical scientist training program (MD-PhD) at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. While this program requires a lot of time and effort, many of us may be interested in becoming a medical scientist in order to apply the research that we would perform to a clinical setting. Those of us who have a genuine interest in research and science would find this program very rewarding.
A major theme of this course was cancer, and we learned about the history of cancer treatment, and what modern cancer research is like. Subsequently, some of us may be inspired to research a form of cancer, and develop the next therapeutic agent. Also, the field of stem cell research and cell potency is rapidly growing, and great discoveries are waiting to be made. This area of research may be of particular interest to our class due to its novelty, and great impact on medicine. Many of us may not have had much exposure to biomedical research, and this class painted a good image of what research is like. Most of us leave this class with a much better of idea of biomedical research, and can lead us to obtain research positions in the coming years.
Biomedical science is an exciting and expanding field. It is important to remember that physicians cannot save and treat patients alone; they need the help of researchers and the use of fundamental science. This course showed us that we are capable of being much more than just physicians. We can be physicians with a strong knowledge of public health, engineering, and basic science. There is so much to learn and discover, and each of us is lucky to have the opportunity to take part in this golden age of science and research.