Of course, I took some pictures. If you'd like to venture out and see the sculptures yourself, they're at the intersection of Lomita Drive and Santa Teresa.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
Wednesday, 30 July 2014
Polynesian Garden
During lunch today my friend showed me one of the "hidden treasures" of Stanford: the New Guinea Sculpture Garden. On the Stanford website, it says that 10 master carvers from Papua New Guinea worked to create these sculptures during the summer of '94.
Of course, I took some pictures. If you'd like to venture out and see the sculptures yourself, they're at the intersection of Lomita Drive and Santa Teresa.
Of course, I took some pictures. If you'd like to venture out and see the sculptures yourself, they're at the intersection of Lomita Drive and Santa Teresa.
Tuesday, 29 July 2014
Intuitive Surgical
Today I had the pleasure of visiting Intuitive Surgical in Sunnyvale for an annual robot "mock" competition (Intuitive Surgical Robonanza) hosted by the company for all of the FRC teams they sponsor-- this is my second year going! We played a scaled down version of 2014 FRC's Aerial Assist.
I actually visited Intuitive Surgical in the fall last year for an Open House. The company invited FRC teams to explore their surgical engineering products, which encompass human-operated machines that wirelessly connect to a "robot" with surgical arms and function to perform minimally invasive surgery (the term robot used loosely, as it isn't autonomous). Imagine wearing rings on your fingers and having a set of arms mimic the exact movements of your hands-- whether they are incising, sewing, or suturing-- on a robot several feet away:
I even got to operate one of the da Vinci surgery systems (not on an actual person, of course) during the Open House. The da Vinci is beyond impressive, with its high-defintion 3D imagery and interactivity. I'd say it's definitely one of my favorite companies in the Bay Area, combining two things I enjoy-- human anatomy and engineering.
While going to the bathroom I also saw this giant book in the lobby with antique-looking anatomy sketches, so I had to take a picture:
.JPG)
And another picture of the lobby, just because:
.JPG)
Aaaaaand I promise I'll write more frequently! I'm going to Alaska in less than 72 hours so that'll be a break from the usual schedule of interning-SAT-robotics madness.
I actually visited Intuitive Surgical in the fall last year for an Open House. The company invited FRC teams to explore their surgical engineering products, which encompass human-operated machines that wirelessly connect to a "robot" with surgical arms and function to perform minimally invasive surgery (the term robot used loosely, as it isn't autonomous). Imagine wearing rings on your fingers and having a set of arms mimic the exact movements of your hands-- whether they are incising, sewing, or suturing-- on a robot several feet away:
 |
| No, I didn't take this photo and it looks incredibly staged, but technology is seriously incredible. This is the da Vinci model. (1) |
I even got to operate one of the da Vinci surgery systems (not on an actual person, of course) during the Open House. The da Vinci is beyond impressive, with its high-defintion 3D imagery and interactivity. I'd say it's definitely one of my favorite companies in the Bay Area, combining two things I enjoy-- human anatomy and engineering.
While going to the bathroom I also saw this giant book in the lobby with antique-looking anatomy sketches, so I had to take a picture:
And another picture of the lobby, just because:Aaaaaand I promise I'll write more frequently! I'm going to Alaska in less than 72 hours so that'll be a break from the usual schedule of interning-SAT-robotics madness.
Wednesday, 25 June 2014
The Gray Area
I work in a neuroscience lab at The Farm, as a self-proclaimed "I'll-do-whatever" intern, and I've been helping out the PhDs and post-docs there for a little over a week. now. Usually my tasks ensue isolating DNA from mice tail segments and most commonly running PCR (polymerase chain reaction) gels, but today I got to observe a forced swim test (FST) conducted with four mice. Afterwards I scored the mice based on their mobility status.
All of these mice were injected with morphine for five days straight in a controlled manner, and after this period morphine treatment was continued for two of the mice and halted for the other two. The idea was to mimic the effects of drug addiction and withdrawal using morphine as the narcotic. A forced swim test is often used to determine the state of “depression” a mouse is in. FST simply involves placing a mouse in a temperature controlled, large cylinder of water for (typically) a standard time of 6 minutes, and timing its brief spurts of mobility. If a mouse is supposedly “normal”, it will struggle significantly and exhibit more mobility in an attempt to escape the water. If a mouse is depressed, it will not display as much mobility, and will in a sense “give up” on readily trying to escape.
At first mention of a forced swim test, even the name of this experiment has a negative connotation to it-- an undertone of animal cruelty. However, as I was introduced to the experiment, I discovered that it is not in fact a live or die situation the mice are put in when they are placed in the water, but that the mice float and are in no danger of harm.
While timing the mice, I struck up a conversation with another intern, Carl, who is an undergraduate at Stanford. Very friendly and approachable, but he surprised me when he asked of my opinion on animal testing. To avoid sounding too opinionated, I simply replied, “I’m alright with it, I guess. It’s for science, right?” and he nodded. He explained that he, too, was also in a gray area when it came to his opinion on animal testing. Ironically, his girlfriend is vegan, and he is a vegetarian for her sake, so he did imply that he isn’t able to discuss his work freely due to the sensitive topic.
Waiting, and still waiting, the mouse being tested at the moment was fidgeting its paw in the water, sometimes moving only to push itself away from the side of the cylinder. The forced swim test, no matter how forced, was of no danger to the mice. It was just a swim, just a cold bath. “They’re not going to die, so it’s not that sad,” Carl continued, “but still… sad.”
The largest elephant in the room was perhaps the mouse under the microscope on the dissection table; its mouth was clamped and the sides of its head were held in place with metal knobs, and most noticeably, its head was sliced open longitudinally so that its brain, pink and fleshy, was visible. This mouse was being inspected independently from the FST we were conducting, something that the post-doc in charge of the experiment was working with. It was what first caught my eye when I walked into the room, like a mouse under surgery, under the knife. And I made the mistake of assuming it was dead, for after staring at it closely, its torso was still pulsating with the inhales of air or maybe even the beats of a heart. It was under anesthetic, on the brink of death, maybe, but its live brain was necessary in order to record brain spike activity. Carl glanced at this mouse.
“You know, I understand the social importance of addiction and everything,” Carl drifted in and out of thought, “but I’m just wondering whether it’s really worth it to kill animals for something like addiction; maybe it would be more justified with something like cancer…”
Maybe. I mean, is it that some diseases and disorders receive precedence? Sure, there is the dichotomy between lethal and benign, but how clear is this dichotomy? You can lose a loved one through cancer, and you can lose a loved one when they fall victim to addiction and become a person different from what you loved them for. Is it fair to say that just because an issue hurts the affected less, that it doesn’t hurt everyone else around them just as much?
The lab orders these mice from yet other labs, where they are bred specifically for the purpose of scientific testing. So, from conception, these mice only have one purpose. No human wanted these mice for a pet, or to love, because what is a mouse to love when science can be discovered that can prevent a love lost? The mice, that scamper, the mice that squeak and bite back and give up when placed in water.
I thought of myself, who dissected her first sheep heart in the 5th grade, who until now has dissected things ranging from a cow eye to a pig lung to a fetal pig. Who, just two weeks ago, led a squid dissection at a science camp for middle schoolers. It had always been explained to me that these animal parts were for learning, that whatever animal gave its life up for the sake of my education, so that I could learn. I thought of all the rats that had to be sacrificed in order for people to determine the structure of DNA, the animals that have to be used to determine virulence of a pathogen. We learn, and we forget. It is our apathy that saves us.
The gray area continues to be gray. You can argue that these mice deserve to be treated as more than products, or that they are just like any other material in an experiment. You can argue that, if bacteria can be used without moral qualms for science, mice can be used as well, since bacteria and mice alike are living creatures lower than humans in the hierarchy of the animal kingdom. You can argue that they deserve rights as sentient entities, being so evolutionarily close to humans.
As of now, I don’t have a formulated opinion of what I think about animal testing. I can see it as us exploiting our evolutionary superiority to maintain this very superiority, but I can also see it as lesser sacrifice for a greater good. Being an intern, I do recognize that at some point I would have to work with these mice again, and possibly have mice die at my hand. The lab is not a place where I can be squeamish or sentimental; it is a place to learn. The best I can do is remove myself from the guilt.
After we recorded footage of the FST and Carl and I scored the mice, we compared the results from the first trial several days ago. It turned out, the results were the complete opposite of the first trial, being less logically predictable as the mice supposedly suffering from withdrawal were actually more active than the mice on morphine. Carl noted that he did pick two of the mice up when preparing the experiment, and that it may have stressed the mice and altered the results.
“So, should we just try this again tomorrow?” Carl asked the post-doc.
“No, we shouldn’t, we probably shouldn’t expose the same mice to the FST twice… and… I was planning to kill two of the mice by then.”
Update: This six-foot statue stands near the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, Russia. Artist Andrew Kharevich notes,
(2)
A poignant symbol of gratitude for how this animal has helped humanity.
All of these mice were injected with morphine for five days straight in a controlled manner, and after this period morphine treatment was continued for two of the mice and halted for the other two. The idea was to mimic the effects of drug addiction and withdrawal using morphine as the narcotic. A forced swim test is often used to determine the state of “depression” a mouse is in. FST simply involves placing a mouse in a temperature controlled, large cylinder of water for (typically) a standard time of 6 minutes, and timing its brief spurts of mobility. If a mouse is supposedly “normal”, it will struggle significantly and exhibit more mobility in an attempt to escape the water. If a mouse is depressed, it will not display as much mobility, and will in a sense “give up” on readily trying to escape.
At first mention of a forced swim test, even the name of this experiment has a negative connotation to it-- an undertone of animal cruelty. However, as I was introduced to the experiment, I discovered that it is not in fact a live or die situation the mice are put in when they are placed in the water, but that the mice float and are in no danger of harm.
While timing the mice, I struck up a conversation with another intern, Carl, who is an undergraduate at Stanford. Very friendly and approachable, but he surprised me when he asked of my opinion on animal testing. To avoid sounding too opinionated, I simply replied, “I’m alright with it, I guess. It’s for science, right?” and he nodded. He explained that he, too, was also in a gray area when it came to his opinion on animal testing. Ironically, his girlfriend is vegan, and he is a vegetarian for her sake, so he did imply that he isn’t able to discuss his work freely due to the sensitive topic.
Waiting, and still waiting, the mouse being tested at the moment was fidgeting its paw in the water, sometimes moving only to push itself away from the side of the cylinder. The forced swim test, no matter how forced, was of no danger to the mice. It was just a swim, just a cold bath. “They’re not going to die, so it’s not that sad,” Carl continued, “but still… sad.”
The largest elephant in the room was perhaps the mouse under the microscope on the dissection table; its mouth was clamped and the sides of its head were held in place with metal knobs, and most noticeably, its head was sliced open longitudinally so that its brain, pink and fleshy, was visible. This mouse was being inspected independently from the FST we were conducting, something that the post-doc in charge of the experiment was working with. It was what first caught my eye when I walked into the room, like a mouse under surgery, under the knife. And I made the mistake of assuming it was dead, for after staring at it closely, its torso was still pulsating with the inhales of air or maybe even the beats of a heart. It was under anesthetic, on the brink of death, maybe, but its live brain was necessary in order to record brain spike activity. Carl glanced at this mouse.
“You know, I understand the social importance of addiction and everything,” Carl drifted in and out of thought, “but I’m just wondering whether it’s really worth it to kill animals for something like addiction; maybe it would be more justified with something like cancer…”
Maybe. I mean, is it that some diseases and disorders receive precedence? Sure, there is the dichotomy between lethal and benign, but how clear is this dichotomy? You can lose a loved one through cancer, and you can lose a loved one when they fall victim to addiction and become a person different from what you loved them for. Is it fair to say that just because an issue hurts the affected less, that it doesn’t hurt everyone else around them just as much?
The lab orders these mice from yet other labs, where they are bred specifically for the purpose of scientific testing. So, from conception, these mice only have one purpose. No human wanted these mice for a pet, or to love, because what is a mouse to love when science can be discovered that can prevent a love lost? The mice, that scamper, the mice that squeak and bite back and give up when placed in water.
I thought of myself, who dissected her first sheep heart in the 5th grade, who until now has dissected things ranging from a cow eye to a pig lung to a fetal pig. Who, just two weeks ago, led a squid dissection at a science camp for middle schoolers. It had always been explained to me that these animal parts were for learning, that whatever animal gave its life up for the sake of my education, so that I could learn. I thought of all the rats that had to be sacrificed in order for people to determine the structure of DNA, the animals that have to be used to determine virulence of a pathogen. We learn, and we forget. It is our apathy that saves us.
The gray area continues to be gray. You can argue that these mice deserve to be treated as more than products, or that they are just like any other material in an experiment. You can argue that, if bacteria can be used without moral qualms for science, mice can be used as well, since bacteria and mice alike are living creatures lower than humans in the hierarchy of the animal kingdom. You can argue that they deserve rights as sentient entities, being so evolutionarily close to humans.
As of now, I don’t have a formulated opinion of what I think about animal testing. I can see it as us exploiting our evolutionary superiority to maintain this very superiority, but I can also see it as lesser sacrifice for a greater good. Being an intern, I do recognize that at some point I would have to work with these mice again, and possibly have mice die at my hand. The lab is not a place where I can be squeamish or sentimental; it is a place to learn. The best I can do is remove myself from the guilt.
After we recorded footage of the FST and Carl and I scored the mice, we compared the results from the first trial several days ago. It turned out, the results were the complete opposite of the first trial, being less logically predictable as the mice supposedly suffering from withdrawal were actually more active than the mice on morphine. Carl noted that he did pick two of the mice up when preparing the experiment, and that it may have stressed the mice and altered the results.
“So, should we just try this again tomorrow?” Carl asked the post-doc.
“No, we shouldn’t, we probably shouldn’t expose the same mice to the FST twice… and… I was planning to kill two of the mice by then.”
******
Update: This six-foot statue stands near the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, Russia. Artist Andrew Kharevich notes,
It combines the image of the laboratory mouse and a scientist, because they are related to each other and serve as one case. Mouse is captured in a moment of scientific discovery. If you look into her eyes, you can see that this little mouse has come up with something. But the whole symphony of scientific discovery, joy, "eureka" has not yet begun to sound. (1)
(2)A poignant symbol of gratitude for how this animal has helped humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)