Quick reflections on the white coat

Earlier today was my white coat ceremony marking the beginning of medical school. The head administrators spoke the usual congratulatory speeches before a concert hall of first-year students and their families. One speaker, however, addressed the conflict of the white coat ceremony. He spoke that the white coat is a barrier between physicians and patients. It is a symbol of authority that has been abused. It's not just women have been unfairly treated (or left untreated) or intentionally mistreated by physicians but many vulnerable populations too. Usually at these ceremonies it's all warm and fuzzy but I appreciated this sobering moment because this is a profession that is all too unwilling to acknowledge its faults.

First day of med school is less than 10 hours away!

A beginning

I'm a first year student at a medical school in the Midwest. (I can use the present tense now? This thought is sinking in daily.) Medical school already has my life even though classes don't start until next Monday. It's only orientation week. We have events all day and no homework. When classes start, we have class all day and then go home to study all night.

Before this, I received dual degrees in Human Biology and Comparative Cultures and Politics, where I met the co-authors of this blog. Outside academics, I was extensively involved in the campus feminist organization and Students for Choice.

During my undergrad years, I developed a few interests that I hope to integrate into my career and personal life: healthy policy, health disparities, women in healthcare, public health, and women's health.

It's been a week of introductions among first-year students, reciting the names of our undergraduate degrees. I don't want to repeat too much here. I'm anxious to get started in school and on this blog.

Other likes: 
Thai tea, cats, girls with short hair and glasses, classical music, art history, the people I met in Denmark, and my personal blog.

A Formal Introduction: Jessieroo

My story is still in the making. 

Like Ecomarci, I am a graduate of Lyman Briggs at Michigan State University with a degree in Human Biology, and a specialization in Bioethics, Humanities, and Society.  I conducted four years of undergraduate research in a Pharmacology & Toxicology Department laboratory studying vascular biology and being exposed to the trials and tribulations of academic science.  I also was a teaching assistant in the undergraduate biology labs in Lyman Briggs--having the privilege of working with some truly gifted scholars, and feeling the heartbreak of student apathy.  Uniquely, my collegiate years gave me a solid foundation for scientific learning as well as an appreciation/passion for the contextual side of scientific thought and discovery. 

Throughout my academic endeavors, I too have had the honor of working with/under some tremendously talented lady scientists (actually, Marci, I quite like this term) and mentors.  Women who, in addition to professional successes, are able to balance family life and personal gratification.  Women who can walk into a predominantly-male conference room in a red dress and present compelling scientific data.  It is with the strength of these women behind me that I proceed forward, building strength of my own.  As part of this, I think it's important to be cognizant of the gender in/and science--because even when the media is portraying a perfectly egalitarian world the department I work in has only one tenure-track female professor (in about twenty-five, total).   

Today, I am just over a year into a PhD in Physiology at the Medical College of Wisconsin doing research on molecular mechanisms behind salt-induced vascular dysfunction (or, simply, how arteries are negatively affected by dietary salt intake).  I remain truly interested in the humanitarian and societal implications of both my science and the science that goes on around me--and one outlet for this energy is through blogging. 

Sexy Beasts

Because it was recommended by a mysterious anonymous commenter, and because it was a link to the Seed Magazine site, and because I continuously grapple with the teachings of evolutionary psychology/biology, I was interested in Eric Michael Johnson's review of the book "Sex at Dawn." 

I have not read the book in question, but the overarching hypothesis seems to be that current human sexuality (essentially, the time and effort human beings devote to sex, while also separating sex from procreation a majority of the time) is the evolutionary result of ancestral "multimale-multifemale mating groups."  It is with this evolutionary sexual foundation, we have (perhaps erroneously) built societies which often stress monogamous, male-female sexual relationships and the avoidance of an amalgam of sexual taboos.  Social constructs dictate with whom, and when, and where, and how we should be having sex--and as Mr. Johnson's review points out with monogamy as a key example such directives are not well followed in today's culture.  I don't think these ideas are so very new, but I'm sure the authors have amply defended and exemplified them.

This is by no means the first time that I've read about or discussed the evolutionary contexts for human sexuality.  I still can't get passed two *little* hang-ups though.  

First: while evolution provides and interesting and often explanatory framework for these discussions, the fact remains that these are theories and cannot be proven.  

Second, even if they could be proven, what has happened in the past has little bearing on what is happening now or will happen in the future: we continue to evolve, and some past adaptations are now obsolete.  I'm not necessarily arguing that our sexual evolutions are obsolete, but human beings have changed in a number of social ways.  For example: although our ancestors scavenged and ate raw meat, society now mandates that we cook our meat before consumption (with a few exceptions).  We used to run around quite naked and hairy.  Now clothes are a "must" and body hair is taboo (to a certain extent, and especially for women).  Evolution is not normative: it does not determine how human beings should or should not behave.  

Finally, I always end up feeling like evolutionary psychology is used as an excused for failing to adhere to cultural norms.  I know that not all cultural standards regarding behavior are defensible.  Nevertheless, I can't condone a pseudo-scientific justification for infidelity.  If infidelity, swinging (as the article mentions) or whatever, is your thing then those expectations should be laid out at the beginning of a potential relationship.  The problem with infidelity is not unfaithfulness in itself, but breaking the spoken or unspoken agreement between two people for exclusivity.  The problem is not that we may be evolutionarily programmed for multiple sexual partners, it is that we continue to willingly enter into monogamous relationships and then find ourselves unable to control whatever primal urges exist for extra-marital/relationship affairs.  Evolutionary background or not, we must remember that being a human being uniquely gives us more control over our biology than any other species.