Besides keeping in touch with friends, being able to Facebook stalk that girl you met in your Biology lab, or tweeting to inform everyone that you just coughed, social media have other, more intellectual applications. They serve as platforms to communicate, to educate, to debate, to inform, and to spread awareness. At the same time, they act as more lighthearted forums to simply express oneself.

Social media has its own place at McGill, where students have unwavering opinions no matter how little they know about the subject. Take Facebook, for example, which has its own McGill network that is further divided by faculty, class, program, et cetera. The “Class of 2015” page has a new debate every few days. Classic debates include the Canadian Blood Service’s blood ban, controversial articles in The Daily, and, of course, last year’s student strikes and anything and everything that had to do with them.

Each with opinions upon opinions, essays upon essays (which I am convinced no one reads – not even the other participants in the argument), people take to Facebook as a forum to express their sentiments on issues they feel strongly about. What’s particularly interesting, however, is how almost every discussion sparks from negativity, from uniting against something. For example, the radical opinions of pieces published in The Daily have been met with more opposition than support on Facebook. Or, when the sixth floor of the James Administration Building was occupied, there were two events on Facebook on which the prevalent atmosphere seemed to be more against the opinions they disparaged than for those they believed in. Such activism and discussion on Facebook, ultimately, perpetuates a divide, yet strengthens an intangible sense of community within the stratified groups.

Another example is that of the seemingly innocuous McGill Memes. While the memes in no way personally offend me, the ‘profile picture’ of the page is interesting. It shows a picture of McGill (the classic picture used for most of its memes) with the text “THAT’S OFFENSIVE” – something that seems to be how every McGill student feels about everything. The memes poke fun at particular groups of people on campus – from privileged students who are disappointed that their platinum cards don’t work at Sinfully Asian, to professors whose classes require expensive textbooks. Again, while this can be flippant, the underlying theme remains that we unite on the basis of negative feelings toward something or someone.

Another newly emerging McGill-specific social media outlet is the Tumblr page, “whatshouldwecallmcgill,” which is a spinoff of “whatshouldwecallme.” The McGill version has become increasingly popular, with GIFs pertaining to life at McGill, and a humorous outlook on them. Popular GIFs poke fun at freshmen, the Milton-Parc neighbourhood, and the way girls may dress on Halloween, among many other topics. Again, while amusing and somewhat true, this tends to perpetuate a sense of divide and reinforce stereotypes that some may not be comfortable with.

I’m not one to get offended easily, nor am I one to oppose harmless jokes, but it’s noteworthy that along with the spread of social media at McGill has come negativity and criticism for everything under the sun. This isn’t unique to McGill, but it’s interesting to see the developing sense of divide and frustration – even alongside unity within these divisions – that is slowly growing in the McGill ‘community.’

Synapses and Systems is a Science+Technology column. S. Azam Mahmood can be reached at synapses@mcgilldaily.com. 

The post Divided we stand appeared first on The McGill Daily.

The fascinating thing about science is its flexibility, its ability to allow one of its subsets to pair with something seemingly unrelated.

Take the study of the brain, for example. If one were to guess, one would likely be satisfied with linking it to compartments of biology such as physiology, anatomy, and neuroscience, and then moving on. But that’s simply not true. A conclusive study of the brain cannot be done without biochemistry, biophysics, biomathematics, and just about bio-anything.

Take virus particles as another example – or the inner workings of the cell. We know unfortunately little about these questions, which one would normally classify under molecular biology. And one wouldn’t be wrong in saying so, just grossly incomplete. It’s almost a crime if biochemistry and biophysics are not incorporated into many aspects of molecular biology. To understand the intricacies of the inner workings of proteins, cells, viruses, and all other things small, biology needs to breed with its counterparts to come to a reasonable conclusion.

It’s this fusion of science (both within its own subdivisions as well as with other areas of study) that leads McGill to have interdisciplinary programs. The birth of cognitive science (a mass combination of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, computer science, and linguistics) as a major at McGill is indicative of this.

But I am an undergraduate. And I’m writing for a student publication. Therefore, I must have something to complain about. And I do: McGill has ignored a core interdisciplinary field.

I stepped into McGill in 2011, unsure of what I wanted to major in. My primary interest lay in physics, but I began to notice how I was becoming increasingly drawn to aspects of molecular biology and neuroscience. I thought of ways to connect the fields I was interested in. I spoke to professors, I read, and I watched videos on YouTube in search of information and ideas.

Everything pointed in the same direction: biophysics. It took me a while to understand exactly what it was and why it was so important in biology. But once I had its many purposes and goals imprinted in my mind, I set my mind on it.

And so I went to speak to an advisor. But I was quickly disappointed: “What do you mean McGill doesn’t offer a degree in biophysics?”

I just…didn’t get it. McGill, world-renowned for life sciences, hosting some of the best labs and facilities for research in biophysics, didn’t offer a biophysics major. It made absolutely no sense.

“You can always do the major in physiology and physics,” I was told. I made it a point to check the requirements of the major, to get an idea of what it offered. But to me, the fact that it was named “physiology and physics” indicated that it treated the two subjects as entirely different entities. And it did. After perusing the required courses, I saw it as a poorly-designed alternative for students who wanted to study biophysics. For example, the bridge between biology and physics is laden with biochemistry. This major outline didn’t have a single biochemistry requirement. Essentially, the closest thing to biophysics at McGill has very little biology, very little physics, and absolutely no biophysics.

Additionally, the only available course at McGill actually designed with the intention of giving an introduction to biophysics was introduced in the winter of 2012.

I understand that McGill is a public institution that’s undergoing innumerable financial setbacks. And I understand that this just places red tape around the process of introducing new programs. But with global rankings taking a variety of programs into account, the lack of such programs can harm the reputation McGill seeks to maintain. Additionally, not offering undergraduates a major in a field that is so important, research-wise, at McGill, verges on ridiculous.

With more-than-capable professors conducting research in biophysics under different departments (namely anatomy, physics, and physiology), a faculty of biochemistry (a field that overlaps greatly with biophysics), and a world-renowned program in cell and molecular biology, it’s high time McGill looked into making biophysics – a relatively new field that is taking the world of science by storm – accessible to the future scientists it seeks to train.

Synapses and Systems is a biweekly column. S. Azam Mahmood can be reached at synapses@mcgilldaily.com. 

The post Getting biophysical appeared first on The McGill Daily.

McGill Daily (MD): In short, how would you describe the FEMR?

Dr. Hojatollah Vali (HV): When I first came to work at McGill, the electron microscopes were…all over the campus. Different faculties had their own microscopes for different purposes. Out of the total of 18 microscopes, 12 of them did not work. I thought it would be important to develop a facility which would allow and promote research using electron microscopy in all the disciplines that [it] was relevant to. Hence, I drafted a proposal to set up what later became the FEMR.

MD: Are the facilities of the FEMR open to any department at McGill?

HV: Absolutely. Any department at McGill can use the FEMR’s facilities. People from outside McGill, from other universities, [also] come and use [our] equipment. We also make it a point not to charge high user fees because we want to promote academic excellence and the idea of learning, which would be difficult if we charged high prices.

MD: The most interesting piece of equipment in the lab is the Titan Krios. When was that bought?

HV: That was actually in 2009. But it took two years for us to install it. The problem was that the ceiling was not high enough to accomodate the 4.5 metre height of the microscope. It was because of this renovation that its installation was delayed. And unfortunately, this renovation cost McGill about $4 million.

MD: This renovation was just for the microscope to be hosted in the building?

HV: Yes, it was just for the microscope.

MD: And how much did the microscope itself cost?

HV: The microscope’s cost was about $6 million, but that came from government agencies, from the CFI (Canada Foundation for Innovation). Almost $4 million of the renovation costs was completely from McGill.

MD: What exactly does the Titan Krios do? What makes it such a special state-of-the-art machine?

HV: It really comes down to the question of conventional electron microscopy versus more advanced cryo-electron microscopy. Cryo-electron microscopy is to examine the structure of cells, proteins, polymers, et cetera. It’s the best way to get the most accurate structure of such systems. Your samples are frozen at the liquid nitrogen temperature, since the microscope operates at this temperature. The entire time, your sample is frozen…and is never exposed to any form of dehydration. This is a very advanced and state-of-the-art technique [that produces] some of the best results. That is why this microscope is so unique. But also why it is so expensive.

MD: How many of these microscopes are there in the world?

HV: When we bought it, it was the first one. But right now, I think there are about twenty or so in the world. This is the only one in Canada.

MD: Where else in the world are they?

HV: NIH (National Institute of Health) has one. There’s one in Washington, one in San Diego. Harvard and MIT don’t have one yet.

MD: Do you think there is a reason as to why schools like Harvard and MIT don’t have one?

HV: Well, the first thing is that it’s not so simple. You have to have a grant; you have to apply for it. They might have applied for one, but it takes time.

MD: Would you say the FEMR is one of the best-funded labs at McGill?

HV: Yes, although it’s difficult to say. We get $135,000 a year. There are some labs that get more, and others that get less. It really depends on your requirements, how much you really need to conduct quality research. The costs of other labs and facilities may be less, so we would take more priority in terms of finances.

MD: How does funding work for the FEMR in general?

HV: Maintenance of [our instruments] is very expensive. […] We get grants, user fees, and support from the university. And usually these machines are on the service contract. But generally there’s a possibility that grant agencies will support us. Unfortunately, since the Conservative government came in, most of these grants are gone. Some agencies in Quebec…[support] us – we have one grant from NanoQuebec that’s providing only for the maintenance. But, ultimately, the university has to support us. The indirect cost for this facility is huge. You need electricity, maintenance, air-conditioning – all these things come at a very high price. And McGill covers all this.

MD: McGill estimates that its budget will be heavily affected by the freeze in tuition. Do you think this would affect this lab?

HV: That’s something we have to see. They might be able to come up with a solution. Unfortunately, money is always an issue. Tuition is a big issue, but it’s not the only issue. The grant issue is a very big issue as well – the fact that, with the Conservative government coming into power, we have lost access to many grants. Last year, we had two or three grants which don’t even exist anymore. But, in terms of tuition, I think we [should] share [the responsibilities]. For instance, my colleagues and I don’t get high salaries. We get either half or one-third of what we would get in the private sector. But we stay here because we are committed. We are here for the students and that’s something they need to realize. The money doesn’t go anywhere – it doesn’t go to buy luxuries; it’s going to maintain [the quality of the lab]. It’s not here for our salaries. The students have to understand this. We all have to contribute in our own way.

MD: To what extent do you think the freeze in tuition hikes would affect the lab?

HV: It affects, directly or indirectly, everything. My point is that it shouldn’t even go so far that students have to demonstrate and the government has to come in and freeze tuition. I think that everybody has to contribute – everybody. …People feel they need to have their car, their laptop, their apartment – and that’s all okay. But then why not pay a little more for tuition? It’s for McGill. I’m not saying we should support capitalism or anything. This is an educational system. …We [as professors] are committed no matter how much the students pay, but people must remember that as teachers, we are researchers as well. My everyday business as a researcher is directly associated to the financial situation at McGill. If we don’t have the support of research, teaching is not going to help us very much. We’re good [teachers] because of our research.

MD: Have you experienced a financial change already?

HV: Oh, yes. Every year, we are getting a certain chunk cut. It’s not that we don’t have enough money to cover our expenses; we are reducing our expenses. We are honestly cut every day and gradually that adds up.

MD: Have you ever experienced a situation where you haven’t been able to do something because of a lack of funds?

HV: Yes. Almost everyday.

MD: What separates this lab from other labs?

HV: Nowhere else in the world can students touch state-of-the-art instruments like the Titan Krios. We are the only lab in the world that actually trains students in how to operate such high technology machinery and such state-of-the-art equipment. We see it as theirs – as the students’. The mentality of the FEMR is to incorporate students. Everything we have, we share with them. And this is really the only place in the world where you can get such experience. It’s important for the students to know and remember that we really are here for them. We are all part of the system. We are all in this together.

S. Azam Mahmood can be reached at synapses@mcgilldaily.com. 

The post Funding and the FEMR appeared first on The McGill Daily.