This week
was primarily spent in the laboratory between Dr. Rodeo and Dr. Ivashkiv’s
groups, learning and practicing techniques critical to my research project this
summer. Specifically, I have gained greater competency in the area of flow
cytometry, not only in regards to conducting the experiments, but analyzing the
data as well. Through this training, I was surprised to discover how much is left
up for interpretation in regards to the data analysis and the inherent
variability that occurs amongst researchers. Additionally, I have gained
experience in RT-qPCR as a method to determine the relative up/downregulation of
specific genes of interest.
Having been
immersed in the clinical research environment already for two weeks, I have
noticed differences in regards to the general pace of research and quality of
study designs. While the speed at which research is conducted and papers are
published appears to be accelerated, the scope of the research studies appear to
be narrower with a lower standard for well-developed research plans.
Surprisingly, despite the busy lives inherent of clinicians, both Dr. Rodeo and
Dr. Ivashkiv are very much present in the lab, providing feedback and
overseeing the progress of research projects multiple times a week.
Yes, I think you are right that often the scope is narrower for clinical studies. So much of what we do is mechanistically driven, and we usually don't publish the pieces until we have a (mostly complete) whole. It's a really different mindset. If I had to guess, part of it would come from being with patients all day. It makes it hard to become disengaged. But, I don't know! You could always ask about the differences in pace and design!! It sounds like your clinicians are really present in the lab, which is so cool. =)
ReplyDelete