On the evening of June 23 thousands of people loaded their cars with sleeping bags, lawn chairs, food, drink, and more, made their way to the nearest mall, and settled down to spend the night. Others got up at 4 am, again navigating their way to a shopping center. These unfortunates then had to wait in line for hours and hours. Why? Because they were waiting to buy the new iphone.

What is it that could make people do this? It is simply that the iphone, like all the Apple products, is very intelligently designed. I am sure you've seen the ads. It is possible to take photos from the front and the back, the cover is soil-resistant, it can act as a GPS, enables face-to-face conversation, has a bigger battery, a faster processor, and it makes you really cool (reference below).

But the key here is the intelligent design. According to Steve Jobs, Chief Executive Officer of Apple, "Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower," and "Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." Basically, Apple seems to have invented or designed a great product--and they are reaping the benefits.

But, let's stop a minute to ponder. The iphone is a clever piece of electronics, a great example of micro technology at work. However, the information that went into making an iphone is nothing compared to that in a single human cell. There we find nanotechnology that we are only just beginning to unravel. Some would argue that the design we see in life is only apparent and came about through random mutation and natural selection. Others point out that our uniform experience of the world is that information originates with intelligent beings. What do you think?

For now, excuse me--I need to go to the Apple store!

Dr. Anthony Cashmore, biologist at University of Pennsylvania, is frustrated with his scientific colleagues. After all, he claims, science has proven that we are no more than bags of chemicals governed by our genetics, environment, and the "inherent uncertainty of the physical properties of matter". Since we can control none of these, and this is all we are, it is logical to conclude that we have no free will and cannot be held responsible for any of our behavior. Wow, I wish I had known THAT while I was a kid!

The reporter wants a scoop. The physician wants patients. The pharmaceutical company wants to create interest that will increase eventual sales. This is a dangerous combination, leading to possible public promotion of unapproved prescription medications.

In the case of Dr. Leslie Baumann and the injectable anti-wrinkle drug Dysport, the line was crossed. Dr. Baumann publicly promoted the drug in 2007 but, it was not FDA approved until April of this year. According to the NY Times, there was then a conference call involving the researcher and the FDA. Not exactly a terrible punishment, but one hopes it was a salutary warning to others who may be considering doing the same.

Think back to your high school or college days. Was there a teacher who stood out from the rest; perhaps even influenced you to enter the career you did? I know I had several: an English teacher who taught us the intricacies of good writing and demanded the production of an essay every week, a math teacher who encouraged his students to tackle problems beyond the scope of the textbook, and a biology professor whose lectures were so fascinating that I quite forgot to take notes. Interestingly, I still use the skills I learned from them--almost every day.

So, what makes a good teacher? Being easy? Being nice? Giving huge curves and good grades? Or teaching clearly, holding students to a standard, going beyond the curriculum and teaching students to think? How can we accurately measure the quality of a teacher?

Currently, there are two methods of assessing teacher quality: in primary and secondary school teachers are evaluated on the basis of student performance on standardized tests. This is not ideal since teachers may "teach to the test" so that their students learn to take standardized tests well (a combination of test taking skills and memorization of facts), but do not learn to assess or apply what they have learned.

In college and post-graduate education the situation is even worse. Here faculty are often judged solely on the basis of student evaluations; scores are used in decisions about tenure and/or promotion. But, according to a study conducted by Dr. Scott Carrell of UCDavis and NBER and Dr. James West of the USAF Academy, high student evaluation ratings are inversely proportional to the quality of the teaching.

This makes sense. The authors point out that students give high marks to educators who "inflate grades or reduce academic content." They also note that under-qualified or inexperienced teachers tend to challenge their students less, thus they achieve higher student evaluation scores. Understandably, the students of these professors, while temporarily happy, do not do well in follow-on courses. In comparison, professors who "broaden the curriculum," encourage good study habits, and "produce students with a deeper understanding of the material," find that their student evaluation scores are low. The result of their teaching is that their students are more likely to succeed in later and related curriculum. But, the professors are less likely to get promotions or tenure.

Carrell and West suggest that, therefore, use of student evaluations to assess teacher quality may not produce what we want: good teachers. In fact, it seems that it produces the opposite. Change is needed. We need to promote educators who encourage their students to develop good study habits, those who promote deep learning instead of rote memorization, not those who win the annual popularity contest.

No need to comment on this rather amusing article from The Onion.

The employees in the UK hospital's microbiology lab followed their normal practice. At 12:50 pm they took off their lab coats and hung them over the backs of their stools, filed out of the lab and to the bathroom where they washed their hands before proceeding to the lunch room. Here they took their lunches out of the refrigerator and settled back to enjoy the mandatory hour-long break. One of the workers got up and busied herself making tea. "Anyone want a cuppa?" Since this took place in England there was universal assent, so she lined up the mugs, added milk, and served the tea.

The next day the number of workers in the lab was significantly reduced, the day after that even less, and by the third day no one was there--backup had to be brought in from another hospital. All the original workers were suffering from cramps and diarrhea/dysentery caused by an infection with Shigella. How did this happen?--after all, the workers were trained in safe practices! Eventually the mystery was solved. One of the first lab workers to wash her hands had transferred some bacteria from a clinical specimen onto the bathroom tap. After that, all who used the tap were exposed. One of those who picked up the bacteria from the tap then opened the milk, spreading the infection further.

Anyone who has worked in a lab is aware of the, frequently onerous, safety protocols. For example, every chemical used in the lab must be cataloged in a binder. Every nanogram of radioactive substance used has to be tracked. All personnel have to sit through safety training relevant to their area. Some labs have to be under negative pressure so that possible airborne particles do not escape.

As reported in the article below, these procedures are good, but they are not enough. Infectious agents, especially those that are produced by biotechnology where their properties are not fully known, do pose significant risk to lab workers. Therefore, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is working towards possibly issuing a new set of regulations: one aimed at hospital labs and the biotech industry.

Will this help? Perhaps, but having worked in many labs and with diverse infectious agents, I am very aware that the biggest risk is human error. I have often witnessed lab workers pick up a ringing phone while still wearing their gloves, lab refrigerators containing bacteria, human cancer cells, and viruses being housed in the hallway because there is no room in the lab, hospital personnel having lunch in their lab coats, dental assistants wearing scrubs to the grocery store, and more.

OSHA regulations are all very well, but it is also highly necessary to educate every person who enters a lab on lab safety. It is also vital that long-term workers are made aware of the risks of familiarity breeding contempt. Finally, I would suggest that there needs to be more openness about reporting lab accidents; after all, we can still learn from another's mistake. For myself, I always turn water taps off with a paper towel!

Publicity Coordinator - Locate and work with event coordinators to develop speaking engagements, radio and TV appearances. - Help write press releases as needed - Help to create publicity media and marketing collateral as needed

Social Media Guru - Develop, maintain, and test the AITSE website as needed - Develop and publish videos online as needed - Assist in the development and deployment of the AITSE newletter - Assist in development of Twitter/Facebook/other social networking

Grant Writer -Identify possible funding sources -Contact foundations, corporations, donors in an appropriate manner/ maintain relationships -Write grants (need previous experience)

If you are willing and able to help in these ways, please let me know!