Reply to comment

I think what was most interesting about this class was also the most challenging, namely the expansion of topics past the basic biopsychological questions to their greater implications. I have never had the chance to translate the primary material into application, and I think this is where some of the challenge lay for me; perhaps that is just an issue with science itself. Should scientists be ethicists as well when conducting research, or rather, should scientists be required to understand the implications of their research?

I really enjoyed most of the presentations, but I particularly enjoyed the discussion following the use of illicit drugs for medical applications, mainly because challenging the foundations of our education is appealing. Why should we take what we learn from DARE as the end all and be all of drugs? This notion is even more interesting, if one was to retroactively reconsider what was taught to us in the state-mandated health courses, or for any courses, for that matter. In science we are taught to question, but only certain aspects. Why is that? Why can I not question the assumed basics of science? I know I talk too much about paradigms, but how are we supposed to advance our understanding if we might be proceeding on faulty assumptions? (Just some questions for you future PhDs and researchers)

Overall, this course significantly differed from my initial expectations of what I thought it would be. But I suppose that’s not a terrible thing.