#asbmb

Chemistry seniors earn ASBMB certification

One sees chemistry as a path to law school and the other, a journey to a doctorate degree in synthetic chemistry. Both are set to graduate Bloomsburg University this December as among the few chemistry graduates — less than 425 in the country — walking this year with American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) certification.

Kimberly Hollister and Alison Martin capped their spring semester by passing the ASBMB National Accreditation exam, enabling BU to exceed the national average by eight percent. Nearly 1,000 college students took the exam, some 417 (42 percent) achieved certification with 122 students (12.3 percent) achieving certification with distinction, as announced by ASBMB last month.

“I love the personalness you feel in our chemistry department,” said Hollister, who plans to pursue a doctorate in synthetic chemistry. “The professors are very invested in our success. They have not only helped me during my academic career but also prepared me for grad school and the workforce. I love that I get the opportunity to work in a research lab for multiple semesters. I've learned so much from the hands-on and personal nature of the department.”

Martin, who plans to attend law school and study intellectual property and patents, said BU’s small size is actually an asset, allowing students to develop a collaborative working relationship with professors in addition to mentorship.

“Each professor really wants what’s best for their students to succeed in and out of the classroom,” Martin said. “The chemistry program has taught me how to think critically. I learned memorizing is not enough. Being able to apply what you know to practical applications is extremely important in the real world.

All students who are part of an ASBMB accredited program are invited to take the certification exam. Students are permitted only a single attempt at the exam during their undergraduate career. The certification exam is designed to test students’ knowledge and understanding of the core competencies in biochemistry and molecular biology developed by the ASBMB and its members.

BU, the first State System school to garner ASBMB program accreditation, isone of six PA schools accredited by ASBMB to include Dusquesne, Penn State and Villanova.

“This highlights the ability of our program to prepare students to be successful on a national stage, especially considering who we compete against,” said Michael Borland, associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry. “This credit does not fall solely on the biochemists; this is a victory for all the (department) faculty and their dedicated and unwavering commitment to undergraduate education. We spend countless hours in the classroom, lab, and office providing these students with the knowledge, tools and opportunities to become diligent, intelligent and competent scientists.”

According to Borland, the ASBMB accreditation and recent exam certification validates that a chemistry and biochemistry education from BU — with small class sizes and hands-on laboratory experiences with cutting-edge instrumentation — makes its undergraduates competitive nationally.

“We may be a small department in terms of graduates,” Borland said. “… but we are an impactful department that provides students the opportunity to evolve and blossom into the best version of themselves as leaders and scientists.”

Hollister agrees.

Singing: Imma fuck you up cause I’m Luffy and you’re not! IIIIIImma fuck yall up.

Sanji jumps into screen kicking some dude in the face: *small squee*

Reflections on Scientific “Riff Raff”

Last year Steven McKnight, the president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, released a statement ostensibly remonstrating the bureaucratic machinery behind the federal funding of science. Chief among his critiques was a perception that the qualifications of scientists filling grant study sessions have significantly declined since the “greatest generation” of scientists working in the 1960′s and 1970′s. McKnight’s charge that “the average scientist today is not of the quality of our predecessors” was quickly, heavily, and rightfully criticized by scientists of all ages.

Since McKnight’s statement came out, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what it means to be a “great scientist” versus “scientific riff raff.” If I’m being exceedingly charitable, I’ll accept that McNight’s statement was less a tantrum about how science is (incrementally) less dominated by “great” scientists who happen to be pale and male and more an incredibly naive statement about the precarious bubble that is biomedical science (a bubble to which McKnight has himself contributed). Though I strongly disagree with either sentiment, working on the podcast has given me an interesting perspective on where this mindset might have emerged.

While working on the podcast I have talked to scientists who have been on both sides of the Matthew effect in academia. In the upcoming batch of episodes, I talk to several young scientists firmly ensconced in labs prestigious labs funded by HHMI and/or multiple RO1 grants. These scientists often have a very different background and a very different set of concerns than those I speak to who work out of smaller, underfunded labs that have a less conspicuous degree of prestige. Many aspects of the life of a scientist are shared by these two groups- almost everyone on the podcast talks about the difficulty of maintaining a work/life balance and the immense stress of lab work, for example- but the experiences of these two groups is often incredibly disparate. In an upcoming episode, I have an extended conversation with a friend of mine from graduate school about our experiences working in labs that had no post-docs, no support personnel, and no grant funding. You’ll hear us discuss the particular difficulties that arise from trying to do science while scrambling to beg, borrow, or steal enough resources to set up experiments (and maybe have something besides ramen for lunch occasionally).

 In the grand scheme of things, these difficulties aren’t as burdensome as other systemic social issues that can affect a person’s trajectory through science. As a person making his way through an institution historically dominated by people that share my gender, orientation, and skin color, I really can’t speak to anyone else’s experience with science. But as someone who falls firmly within the “riff raff” camp that now works at an immensely prestigious institution, I think I can state that the circumstances that surround where someone does their science has a significant effect on their work and their career.