I had chosen to interview my sister, Jasmine Nirody, who is currently a graduate student here at UC Berkeley. Jasmine does not consider herself an engineer so much as a scientist. She has always felt drawn to the quantitative science, but she appreciates most the practicality of the applied sciences. My sister believes, that although engineering is only a form of applied science, one with an eye for the future in the immediate, the spirit of invention and then discovery is what sets it apart. Indeed, she believes the best way for concepts to “click” is to have “real, physical examples,” and so the philosophy of engineering was important in her education.

Jasmine graduated from NYU with a degree in applied math and biology, two fairly different fields. She explained the  “I’m a mathematical biologist on paper, but in reality, I guess I’d say I’m more an applied physicist than anything else.” Jasmine has often spoken to me about the progressive blurring of definitions within academia and science / engineering in general. Boundaries between what were once distinct fields are fast disappearing. She said: “Nowadays I think collaboration is getting more and more necessary because it’s very clear that no field is really “alone” anymore: biology is becoming more quantitative, physicists and engineers are realizing that bio-inspired design can improve their work. Everyone benefits.”

A major ethical issue in her field, which is pertinent to most fields in biology, is the use of animals in experiments. Jasmine has worked with animals in the past, in particular, for her undergraduate thesis on the locomotion of snakes, which she cleverly titled “Snakes on a Plane”. She explained, “My undergraduate research involved snake locomotion, and we did motion experiments on over 20 snakes.” I recall, many times outside this interview, she said that she had grown somewhat close to her subjects. Her experiments however, did not involve “sacrifice,” or euthanasia. I then asked her, what organizations regulate the use of animals. From the interview and from what I remember, is that the Institutional Review Board frequently inspects labs that use animals for research to see that protocol is followed and unnecessary suffering is avoided. Jasmine also told me that while research involving vertebrates is heavily regulated, research using invertebrates is virtually unregulated.

I understood that conflicts of interest are issues in academia, where opportunities for funding are in demand. I posed my question: “Are conflicts of interest within science common, what might their effects be, and what would that mean for your field?”  She responded, “In my field, I suppose they arise mostly due to funding sources,” and continued, explaining through example, that scientists are often under pressure to produce certain desirable results, since fore fear of losing funds if the project is “unsuccessful.”

A second common issue brought up was the idea of intellectual property. Jasmine said, “This is a touchy subject. I have a difficult time with this, because I don’t think you can “own” an idea — any thought you’ve had has been had by someone else previously.” In the end, it could be thought of as an unintended effect of competition, which on the whole, is beneficial in how it drives progress. Of course, many instances may seem closer to  “plagiarism”, resulting from improper uses of another’s work. Ideas can be shaped by conversations or talks and presentations, and the line between helping a colleague and “getting scooped” can be very blurry. This fear of the competition can often lead to lack of collaboration, and overall be a hindrance to scientific progress. Jasmine said, “Any idea you’ve had is very likely shaped by a conversation with someone or a paper you read or a talk you attended — is the idea then “partially owned” by those who influence you? Where is the line? If competition speeds along the progress of science, then so be it. At the end of the day, an advance is made and that’s all that matters.”