Research On the Researcher

Dear Forum. I am glad to announce that all I have learned in Biological Writing is paying off. I wrote what I believe was a "killer resume," until I learned there is not such a thing, and a great personal statement and used them to apply for the Undergraduate Research and Mentoring (URM) Program. My resume served its purpose, I made the cut to the interview part. Thus, I decided it would be interesting to do some research to be as prepared for my interview as I possibly can. So why not do some little research on the researchers that host the interviews? I would like to think that a little of initiative to learn about the field I am looking to work on can help during my interview. I mean what if they ask me about what I think their research is about and I don’t know? That would certainly be bad.

Fortunately, to do research on my Professors is easier than I thought. It is as simple as typing their names in GOOGLE SCHOLAR, my new best friend. It took me less than a few minutes to find a vast amount of papers that Dr. Kristine L. Lowe has written or had a contribution on. However, I am not giving up since the most recent paper I found about her is 4 years old which I think is very strange. Dr. Zen is ALWAYS talking about how important continuity in scientific writing is. Thus, I don’t believe she has not published anything recently. I am inclined to look for more papers in a scientific database.

Before that, nonetheless, I looked through the UTPA Biology website and I was able to find a lot of the papers some Professors have been working on in chronological order. What else could I ask for? Dr. Zen and Dr. Fredensborg are among the Professors I know that seem to write pretty regularly. I know Dr. Fredensborg is a member of the committee to decide which students get into the URM Program but I also have a lot of knowledge about his research since I took an animal parasitology class he was teaching during the summer.

Now, I feel more confident walking into my interview tomorrow morning Thursday, December, 1^st. I am eager to take on a new challenge and possibly work with the program to do good research, publish some academic papers and presenting what we have learned to the scientific community. It is not certain I will get the position but what is certain is that I will try my very best. Why am I writing about this in my biology blog? Duh! Because it is MY blog and I can write what I want and since there is nothing else I can think about right now, I think this is a good way of releasing some stress about the topic. By the way, this might be the last mandatory blog I do for a grade. However, I will continue to write. I believe blogging has a lot to offer. A few months back, I believe it was just a nerdy or busybody way of communication but I now understand the importance of blogging in the scientific and the academic community in general.

Involuntary Mental Hospitalization: A Crime Against Humanity Analysis

In Involuntary Mental Hospitalization: A Crime Against Humanity, Thomas Szasz takes a stand in the Anti-Psychiatric movement of the 1960’s and argues that involuntary psychiatric commitment is a crime against humanity because it deprives people from controlling their own lives which is a violation of human rights. In addition, Szasz argues that personal freedom and autonomy are more important rights for humans even than their apparent well-being. Hence, the government has no right to interfere in anyone’s life even if they are supposedly looking for their well-being.

Szasz then proceeds to challenge the critics’ claims. Critics claim that Involuntary Patient Commitment (IPC) benefits those suffering from mental illness. However, Szasz argues that although there are mental abnormalities there is no such thing as mental illness. Does abnormality makes human ill? Szasz claims that “mental illness” is a metaphorical construction used to exercise political power over the abnormal. Moreover, Szasz argues that IPC does not benefit patients who obtain poor medical care but rather the people surrounding the mentally abnormal because psychiatric institutions isolate and contain mental abnormalities rather than treating them.

Thereafter, Szasz argues that moral evidence dictates the wrongs of IPC. Morally, every individual owns his own body. We have autonomy and freedom to decide what is best for us. Thus, no treatment should be administered without informed consent.

On the other hand, Critics move to claim that IPC is administered to protect us from the mentally ill. Szasz counters this argument by stating that mental illness ought to be meaningful only in the context of a voluntary Dr./Patient relationship. Furthermore, Szasz claims that going this route would put us in a slippery slope, where people could take advantage of the system for their own gain. For example, a rapist and murderer who kills and rapes might argue and act like a mentally abnormal person to free himself from going to prison and going into a mental institution instead. Even Psychiatrist might abuse the system by declaring mentally competent individuals as mentally abnormal in order to have more patients and thus make more profit.

Finally, Szasz claims that our historical evidence demonstrates that mental illness tends to be over diagnosed. Mental illness, according to Szasz, is an ideology that allows a social class to dominate another one. IPC is an equivalent of slavery that allows the most powerful social classes to contain the undesirable lower classes and enslave them. In New Jersey, for example, two sex offenders claimed to be mentally ill to be sent to a mental facility rather than prison. They claimed they were not responsible for their action because of their abnormalities. However, they were denied their claims and were sent to prison. 17 years later, after serving their time in jail, they were now declared legally mentally ill and were about to be put in a mental facility. This shows the class clash between the higher elite classes who prefer not to have sex offenders in the streets and take advantage of the system, rather unfairly, to enslave and imprison some people.

Even though Szasz is a Psychiatrist himself, he opposes the approach that most psychiatrists are taking. He claims that since he is a psychiatrist himself, he knows the faults of the system and understands those flaws very well. How are patients supposed to get better if the main purpose of psychiatric care is just to isolate and contain psychiatric abnormalities? Certainly not with Involuntary Patient Commitment (IPC).

Death From the Skies Presentation Critique

Yesterday night, Tuesday November, 15, 2011, the University of Texas-Pan American hosted the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Speakers Series. We were fortunate enough to listen to Dr. Phil Plait very well known as “the bad astronomer.” Phil Plait is a famous blogger, writer and even hosted a T.V show for Discovery channel.

During his presentation, Dr. Plait taught the audience about the difference between asteroids and comets, explained the odds of either one of them hitting us during our life time, showed what the consequences could be if such event did occur and criticized the movie Armageddon. LOLZ.

Unlike many scientists, Dr. Plait was easy to understand and even pleasant to listen to. He kept the audience laughing with many sarcastic remarks and jokes he would throw every so often. I honestly went to the event only for extra credit but I was surprised by how a good speaker can make even a boring subject interesting. I would have never cared to take an astronomy course unless it was required until after this presentation. Now I am even contemplating buying Dr. Plait’s book, Death from the Skies!: These Are The Ways The World Will End.

Even at the end of his presentation, Dr. Plait allowed an extensive Q & A session that allowed the audience to interact with him directly. I was sincerely cracking up until the end. I even got a chance to touch a segment of a meteor. HOW COOL IS THAT?

At the end of the event, Dr. Plait was given a little token of appreciation on behalf of UTPA. He quickly showed his Bronc pride by wearing his UTPA Jacket and hat. He is smart, funny and down to earth which is a difficult place for astronomers to be).

Therefore, I my only and more realistic remark regarding the presentation is that “IT WAS AMAZING!!!” I highly encourage anyone interested in astronomy or even anyone just seeking entertainment to attend to this guy’s presentations.  They are just so wicked cool.