Random Thoughts

The seemingly endless pursuit of scientific knowledge through rigorous research, in my view, is the outward expression of an inward reality deeply rooted in the heart of every human being. Whether we are involved in scientific research or not, it is not surprising to realize how our hearts have the natural tendency to learn, seek, and discover. You may have already experienced the joy and excitement that arise in your heart as a result of understanding something through your own discovery. Well, if you are a research scientist, this is the kind of joy and excitement that would wake you up at night and hurry to the lab.... Along with the thrill comes dissatisfaction with a even deeper hunger to gain more knowledge, which translate into higher motivations and harder work. Apart from our external expressions in response to a new discovery, could there be something fundamental and universal in our inner beings that is the source of that thrill, that hunger, and that drive? Could it be that ultimately, the thrill, the hunger, and the drive are meant for pursuing something greater than scientific knowledge, something that can truly satisfy our discovery minds and longing hearts?

Indeed, yes. Our passion to research the biology of life is merely a limited reflection of our passion to discover the purpose of life, which can only make sense when we come to know the Creator of life. We are created by God in His image, and we are created with a passionate and desiring heart that can only be fully satisfied by Him and nothing else, not even the greatest scientific discovery.

As C. S. Lewis said, we are living in "shadowlands" that hint us of our true Home. The "shadows" are meant not to produce illusions but to point us to the "Real Thing." Can you sense that God is drawing your heart to Him?

#2 Common sense: when making comparisons, say, of two things, one of which must be presented as the standard or the norm so as to make the other appear different or abnormal. To illustrate this, let's imagine the scenario where a person would like to determine whether he/she has a fever. The person would simply have to measure his/her body temperature with a thermometer and compare it to 37°C, the approximate body temperature of a healthy human being. A temperature greater than 37°C is usually indicative of fever. Here "37°C” is the “standard” or “norm” that makes sense the measured body temperature of the individual. In other words, one cannot know that, for example, 39°C is an abnormally high body temperature without comparing it to 37°C.

The scientific mind: For researchers, when designing any experiment, it is of foremost importance to include a “standard” or, in scientific term, “control,” so that any data obtained from conducting the experiment can be analyzed against the “control.” For instance, to determine whether a cellular protein is activated or inhibited in response to external stimuli such as viral infection, one would want to have cell samples without or with the treatment of virus. The effect of virus on the behavior of the protein of interest can then determined by comparing the expression levels of the protein between the uninfected (control) cells and infected (experimental) cells. In reality, two controls should be used in this experiment. The first control sample consists of “untouched” cells that undergo no treatment. The second control sample should be “mock-infected” cells that are treated with only the buffer used to dilute the virus, hence the term “mock.” Now the experimental sample, as you probably have already figured out, contains cells infected with the virus, with the same volume as that of the buffer used in mock-infection. So why are there two controls? Simply, this is to ensure that the virus, not the buffer, is the effecting agent. You see, the first control is in fact the control for the second control, which in turn serves as the control for the experimental. The use of “double controls” adds stringency to the experiment and credibility to the resulting data. Assuming that our protein of interest is activated or up-regulated upon viral infection, then our data as presented in a bar graph might resemble what is shown at the upper-right corner of this entry.

We unconsciously yet frequently use "controls" in our daily-life "experiments." Just take notice of your thought processes when making comparative decisions; you might be amazed at how often your scientific mind is at work, even though you have never been trained for the lab bench.

#1 Common sense: Now that I have a break between chores, instead of doing nothing but watching time goes by, why not find something meaningful to do?

The scientific mind: Researchers tend to make good use of the waiting periods (e.g. incubation time, reaction time) between experimental procedures. Things like labeling tubes, cleaning up, preparing reagents, having a lunch or coffee break, etc. can be done during this time. Good researchers THINK AHEAD and see what can be done in between experiments so that their time is maximized.

Common Sense Vs. The Scientific Mind

"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." (Albert Einstein)
As a graduate research assistant in a virology/immunology laboratory, I'm seeing more and more the brilliancy of this quote and at the same time feeling a sense of humbleness and awe that God created not just a few but all people to have minds for scientific research. Many things that I've learned from observing and doing research, interestingly, find their origin in our common sense. Here I'd like to share a few examples with you.