Flow Folks-I apologize for clogging the list with this kind of response, but I am a bit dismayed at this negative commentary regarding present day graduate students... Having earned my PhD not so long ago, I am not so far removed that I cannot remember what it was like or what approaches were taken in the lab that I feel made me more than just an automaton. It is my opinion, and I feel quite strongly about this, that the lack of understanding on the part of graduate students regarding what exactly is going on "in that tube" does not and can not lie entirely on the student. Graduate training is just that: TRAINING. If a student does not understand, or at least fully appreciate, what she or he is doing, that student's mentor is not free from blame. I think in the rush to publish, publish, publish (both on the part of mentor and student), the active exchange and intellectual discussion that should be a part of any laboratory, especially those in which graduate students are pursuing their degrees, falls by the wayside. Unfortunately, kits provide an easy way to get things done quickly and efficiently-but this does not prevent anyone from reading the classic papers (and the contemporary good ones) and actively discussing the theory behind experiments and the implications of the results! In this generation of kits, we need to ask ourselves: what has happened to mentor responsibility? Julie Moore, PhD Molecular Vaccine Section, Immunology Branch Division of Parasitic Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chamblee, GA 30341 Phone: 770-488-4948 Fax: 770-488-4454 Email: uzm5@cdc.gov <mailto:uzm5@cdc.gov> -----Original Message----- From: Deborah Berglund [mailto:umbbd@gemini.oscs.montana.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 10:47 AM To: Cytometry Mailing List Cc: Cytometry Mailing List; Calman Prussin Subject: RE: Intracellular bubbly I have to get in on this one. We are constantly being dismayed at the lack of knowledge of students because of easy to use kits and instrument. Some of them have no clue what they are doing or why, they just follow the directions. This is not a good thing. We are poor and cheap and make up most of our own reagents, leaving the kits to those who do routine stuff and don't really care why things work. Have a glass of champagne for me! Deb Berglund On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Mario Roederer wrote: > > >I will be happy to go hand to hand at the upcoming FASEB meeting with any of > >your technical staff examining Ag specific responses by flow and will bet a > >case of Champagne (OK, 1/2 a case) that my "notoriously variable cookbook" > >system will have less noise and as good a signal as the out of the box "fix > >and perm" kit from Caltag. Are we on? Kevin Holmes can be the referee, > >results to reported to the Cytometry mailing list. > > Cool! I'm in on this one! Let's up the ante, and make it a full case of > Roederer champagne (i.e., the good stuff). I'll bet on Calman. > > (By the way, we use "cookbook" methods that are, by today's standards, > quite dated--and they still give us excellent results that are > reproducible. We use PharMingen antibodies and home-made fix/perm > solutions). > > mr > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:53:17 EST