As a junior majoring in Microbiology here at MSU, I have come to both love and hate labs. I’m not talking about the kind that you might have taken at the doctor to check your triglycerides or for the presence of HCG; what I’m talking about are “laboratory-based” courses. Students in every major from Biochemistry to Business, Political Science to Spanish are required to spend a certain amount of time at the bench, and the question that I pose to both students and the administration is: Do our labs really help students learn material? Are our labs providing the “practical” and “hands-on” experience that they set out to do? If not, why not, and if so, then why does every student enrolled in them rue the hours spent brooding over some ponderous slime mold or titrating some unknown acid/base concoction?From the intensely serious and perpetually messy staining of bacteria in a Microbiology lab to the not-really-a-lab labs of statistics and genetics, I have seen, smelled, touched and (though it’s not necessarily permitted) tasted everything from Plant Biology to the waves and optics of Physics II. So, what has this experience gained me? I’m not entirely sure. And I say that not because I’m pessimistic by nature, but because of some very humbling experiences that I have had. This summer I had the opportunity to work in the Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, and I felt absolutely inept. I could not even understand the basic protocol that I was handed and asked to perform, let alone carry it out. Sure I had the formal “lab” experience required to gain access to a Biosafety Level II research operation, but was I capable of doing what was required of me in an actual research setting? I am afraid that the answer is no, and I believe the reasons for this are many.
The first specific example that I will cite is the general “watering down” of labs from the original hands-on, come-out-with-your-clothes-soiled-and-smelling-of-formaldehyde experience of yesteryear to the largely purposeless and flaccid labs of today. To give some illustration of what I mean, I will allude to a quasi-famous story as told by Dr. Downer in the Biology department about what used to be performed in the Immunology lab. Students would take chickens and inject them over the course of a few weeks with a substance designed to illicit an immune response. Then, after enough time was given to provide for the initial build-up of antibodies within the chickens, students would administer one last dose (the illiciting dose), and then have the opportunity to physically observe the reaction of anaphylaxis, and witness first-hand the process by which this important biological function was carried out. That is what I like to call intensely hands-on! Today, to contrast, many imporant Biological Science courses such as Immunology and Virology are officially labless. To make up for it, however, you can now have the incredible experience of memorizing the bones of a fish skull in a comparable lab. Many of the labs in the department of Biological sciences were “regulated out of business,” in the words of Dr. Downer. Back in the early ’80s, the pandemic of AIDS forced the U.S. government to tighten its strangle-hold on research/laboratory availability of human tissues, and accompanying these new restrictive measures, such important laboratory experiences as human cadaver labs and courses that worked with animals and human tissue were officially cut out of the curriculum. This was followed by the unnecessarily litigious actions of a few students in response to laboratory “accidents,” and with that, the final nail in the coffin for proper laboratory exposure was in place.
I just don’t see the point in holding a class under the guise of a lab when what students are experiencing is often far from it. Perhaps I’m just a sucker for the hands-on approach, but honestly … what purpose would a “Virtual Histology” lab serve? Indeed, how can a course such as this even be labeled as a lab? We as an institution of higher learning must see beyond the unjustified fear of legal action and the cost of laboratory equipment/instructors in order to fully realize the value of a laboratory intense education. I ask you, how much greater would the cost of an under-educated student body be? After all, how effective will a scientist be if they are not allowed to practice and hone their tradecraft? An athlete would not be expected to perform in an event after not having practiced, and without proper equipment, would they? Surely the education of our future doctors, pharmacists, chemists, and biologists is at least as important as athletics.
I propose we go back to the basics of an “open lab” where students would be able to conduct their own experiments at their own pace, under the approval/mentorship of a faculty member – sort of a bridge between the “senior project” experience of high school and the individual research projects that are required by such respected graduate institutions as Vanderbilt Medical School.
We have an obligation at this university to uphold education to the highest standard. Cutting corners with regards to labs is unacceptable and frankly, disappointing.
Chris Clark is a junior majoring in microbiology. He can be contacted at [email protected].