Doing research without deep knowledge

Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0000

Dear Professor Jeltsch,My name is Shahid, and I am studying Medicine. I am interested in molecular biology and biochemistry. Sadly, my curriculum does not include many modern molecular biology research techniques. Still, I want to learn about this area to the extent that makes me comfortable putting forward a hypothesis and a possible treatment for a disease. My goal would be to test this hypothesis with the help of a research team of molecular biologists and other experts. Therefore, I don’t need deep knowledge. With this letter, I am asking a professional researcher like you to point me to resources that would allow me to acquire the necessary expertise for such an endeavor. What would be suitable books or materials to study? I should also mention that I have access to all the significant scientific publishers via our university library.Thanks for our assistance,ShahidI received the above request via email a few months back. I always encourage students to go beyond what the curriculum offers. That is not to say that a good “run-of-the-mill” education does not enable you to be part of a productive team. But without going beyond the curriculum, it isn’t easy these days to have any lasting impact on anything. So far, so good. The red flag in the above email is this sentence: “Therefore, I don’t need deep knowledge.“When treating most diseases, low-hanging fruits have been picked. There are two approaches when trying to reach the high-hanging fruits:

Thus we learn our lessons, not for life, but for the lecture-room

Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0000

Non vitae sed scholae discimus (“Thus we learn our lessons, not for life, but for the lecture-room”). 2000 years ago Seneca wrote this to one of his students. My son is of the same opinion: Much of his curriculum content is irrelevant for real life. Unfortunately, I have to agree (and many experts do agree as well). Within a few years, the initial pride and joy of starting school are followed by boredom and disinterest. Just a few weeks into the autumn semester, the kids are merely waiting for the Christmas vacation. Learning should be fun and I wonder what is going wrong? How does the school manage to kill off the natural curiosity and motivation that quickly?In the beginning, I argued with my son, that it is not very important WHAT you learn, but that you learn how to learn, which should be possible with almost any topic. However, while perhaps true, this notion is at the same time a confession of failure by the ppeople, who make and implement the curricula at our schools. Why does it seem so difficult to choose topics that are interesting and relevant?100 years ago, reading, writing and basic arithmetics might have been enough. Knowledge is exploding these days, but the only answer of curriculum planners is the cram more into the plans without getting rid of teaching obsolete factual knowledge. That leaves little freedom for the teaching of methodological competencies which are deeply needed in today’s society.I get it, that schools have limited financial and personnel possibilities. However, there are teachers, who - against all material limits (in one of the richest countries in the world!) - manage to deliver a modern and enjoyable customer (sic!) experience.As an answer to the future needs of our society, some people try to push the STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). However, especially in these subjects, the knowledge and information growth is so fast that curricula (which are by definition rather inert) and also most teachers are not able to keep pace with. Even though the knowledge might be relevant, the more important lessons that should be taught are not of factual knowledge, but of methodological knowledge. And methodological knowledge can be taught with highly interesting and relevant topics:

Knowledge on Michael’s Domain

Doing research without deep knowledge

Thus we learn our lessons, not for life, but for the lecture-room