The Dose Makes the Poison, Redux

I recently finished reading "The Poisoner's Handbook" by Deborah Blum. The stories of murder and corruption in Prohibition-era New York makes for an enthralling way to introduce the science of poisons to the masses. More importantly for me, however, is that this book is a journey into the beginnings of forensic toxicology and a testament to the increasing need for public health welfare (both then and now).

The protagonist is a public health crusader in the form of New York's first legitimate Chief Medical Examiner, Charles Norris. Norris also fought tirelessly against corrupt government bodies of the Tammany Hall era. Sadly, the same struggles are faced by scientists today: Science and scientists are constantly undermined in the public sphere by government officials trying to push their own agendas and pander to their corporate backers. Fear and emotion-based arguments (as opposed to fact-based) are used to discredit scientific work, most of which are made by those who are not at all qualified to comment on its validity. Most lawyers and politicians do not have the skills required to correctly critique scientific data, just like I, as a scientist, wouldn't be able to adequately critique other technical jobs, such as that of a surgeon or mechanic.

Regardless, by the end of the 1920's, forensic toxicology gained recognition as a validated science that proved useful in law enforcement. Additionally, certain chemicals started to be regulated and banned from use, thanks in large part to Norris and the work of his meticulous toxicologist, Alexander Gettler. In the wake of Walter White and Gale Boetticher, Gettler's type A personality and devotion to sound science is not only understood but admired. After all, Mr. White's fastidious adherence to protocol produces the best product out there; the same can be said for Gettler's exacting methods used to inform some of the earliest, canonical studies on carbon monoxide toxicity as well as levels of ethanol intoxication. Not only did it produce the best results, but his repeated testing reiterated the certainty behind his results-- a hard case to argue against when used as evidence in court or to push for policy change.

Walter White and Gale Boetticher, Breaking Bad, Season 4

Here are a couple notable take-away points from this deliciously informative novel that reads like a murder mystery:

1. Quit trying to poison people. Many failed to get away with it in the 1920's and today's modern instruments are exponentially more sensitive and accurate in identifying extraneous toxic substances in the body.

2. Regulation is important! Yes, government-sponsored, scientifically sound regulations that monitor and decipher levels of toxic substances in our food, consumer products, and environment. Without them, something like wood alcohol (aka methanol, methyl alcohol, CH3OH) would be an acceptable additive to drinking alcohol (ethyl alcohol). Of course, this is only a problem if you are averse to going blind or subjecting to an early, unpredictable death after having a few at the bar.

3. For those of us in Public Health: Don't give up. It's exhausting and you can't do it alone, but it is possible to influence policy change down the line. Engaging the public and informing them to the dangers of environmental chemicals is essential to any real change ever happening. So, when you have some time out of the lab (?), be sure to work on those communication skills.

MadLabRat, PhC

Some wonderful news from the past week: I passed my Oral/General Exam!

This was a huge relief and a great feeling. I'm so happy it's over. I'm now officially a PhD Candidate. The last 4 years? I guess slave, underpaid worker, or plain old graduate student was the appropriate title. I celebrated with some good food, better friends, awesome Girlfriend, and some karaoke.

Fig. 1

As for the exam itself, it went well overall. I had prepared and practiced my presentation profusely, and I believe it paid off. I received several compliments on the layout of my data and project aims in its accessibility to the audience. Always a good thing to hear. Advice from this experience #1: A clear presentation (bullet points and plentiful images) allows you to successfully communicate your ideas to a broad audience and prevents confusion. This last point may seem obvious, but in academia, even the slightest bit of confusion may offend certain professors' sensibilities, resulting in angry ape-like behavior (see Fig. 1).

My committee was a bit more aggressive in  dwelling on certain aspects of my project, aspects I didn't expect to be the focus of discussion. That was another major take-away point for me here, and for anyone preparing for such an exam (where anything is fair game for the panel to ask/discuss)-- you really never know what points will flip the switch in certain people's minds and lead them to focus on something specific. This is why it's important to think carefully about how you say things, what you choose to say, and perhaps, to get to know your committee members a bit better before the exam. I am definitely guilty of not engaging them sooner in this process, but I'm not going to get into the reasons for that here.

Even though I felt I had some sort of answer or talking point about anything that was mentioned, in some ways, I felt I somehow came up a little short in my committee's eyes. I'm honestly unsure how accurate my personal assessment of this situation is, seeing as I did pass after all. But for me, if it's not A's across the board with a glowing record of achievement (which you don't often receive in grad school), it's obviously a failure. Maybe my best advice, then, is to steer clear of the PhD track if you're a perfectionist at heart.