For my last blog post I get the pleasure to describe my experience in neurochemistry. This class has been the most unique chemistry course I have taken in my time at Concordia. Its style, content, and approach are exciting and refreshing in many ways.
First off, the style of neurochemistry was incredibly different from my other chemistry courses. This class is run in a discussion based format, which to be honest I was not a fan of before the start of the class. I found my other discussion based classes at Concordia (outside the sciences) greatly disappointing. My experience with discussion based classes was that it is not necessarily a format where the professor shares their experience and knowledge, but where they merely facilitate discussion that should lead to learning. I understand that this is how a lot of people prefer to learn but I really just love a good lecture where a professor shovels an incredible amount of information onto you and leaves you to make the deeper, more subtle connections in the material. Neurochemistry however, finally achieved what a discussion based course should be, in my opinion. Dr. Mach, our fearless leader, made it clear from the beginning that she was going to bring what she could to the class but that the class format would make it so that she was more of a colleague than a professor. We spent our time reading cutting-edge scientific research that no one, not even the professor, initially understood. We then had to collaborate to elucidate what the authors were trying to make clear and then, most importantly, assess where the scientific research could go from its current state.
Last year I was lucky enough to receive a position as an organic chemist for a laboratory here in Fargo. My supervisor has a PhD and many of my coworkers have advanced degrees of their own. When I joined this team I learned very quickly what it was like to be a scientist in the real world. No longer was I a student and had to have mastery over every aspect of a subject. No longer did I need to know everything. I joined the team with a specific set of skills and unique knowledge to contribute. At my job we tackle problems and run experiments of incredibly varied types. No one that I work with knows everything about what is going on, and we all have to work well together to make advances. This is what real world science looks like. Discoveries are made by teams of unique individuals who contribute their niches of knowledge to solve a problem. Watson and Crick, the two researchers who first elucidated the structure of DNA, needed a keen organic chemist to describe a chemical process for them to finally connect the two strands of thought they were struggling with.
This is why it has been such a pleasure and so much fun to experience a class that finally captures what real life science looks like. It has been a powerful, and humbling, experience to watch my peers and myself tackle complex diseases and problems and come away with a greater understanding for these terrible diseases that afflict our families, friends, and neighbors.
For me, neurochemistry is a launching pad for my scientific career. I am hoping to go to graduate school and attain a PhD in chemistry. My professional life will likely be carried out in this similar format for many many years. For many of my peers however, this will be the only time they experience scientific collaboration like this. This doesn’t cheapen their experience in any way though, as I am sure that physicians and health professionals collaborate in a similar manner.
What an opportunity we have had to experience this collaborative format in our undergraduate studies! And thanks go to you, the reader, for coming along for the ride.
Neurochemistry on the shores, an ocean of science dead ahead
