Maegan Gindi

RIT is an establishment of two great forces that not only complement each other but repel as opposites. When juxtaposed, it becomes difficult to overlook the macroscopic differences staring us in the face. Scientists walk amongst animators while painters spot a sea of engineers. The two species, left and right-brained thinkers, each struggle to grasp the other’s motives and purpose as our day-to-day lives play out. We are truly a campus divided.

With that division comes many preconceptions — thoughts without substance due to questions unanswered. We theorize about the other side and what exists beyond that thin, murky line separating us. What are the lives, workload, intelligence, and skill of those we pun and stereotype? These questions remain because of insufficient analysis. There has been no evaluation carried out and no data collected from an outsider’s perspective. Nothing until now.

We present to you a revolution, a truly innovative and creative attempt to understand what lies behind the burgundy, brick-studded walls of these two RIT breeds. This is an insider’s firsthand account, from an outsider’s perspective. Here, you will see a switch between Michael Barbato, a third year Biotechnology — Bioinformatics Option major and John Howard, a third year Film major. They will experience the other’s life and report back all observations and findings.

From Behind the Camera Lens

Abstract
Before getting into this experiment, the only thing I knew was that it sounded like fun. For one thing, I’d get to try out another major without the cost of credit hours and the troubles registering. The whole concept of free classes couldn’t help but spark my interest as a possibility for bragging rights to all of my engineer and scientist acquaintances hung on the line.

The week’s lineup was pretty straightforward. To get the general “gist” of being a bio major, I’d be starting off with an Introduction to Biology lecture and lab, then capping off the experience by shadowing an upper-class research student. Upon accepting the challenge, I made a list of what I knew about the major. It included: “wears gloves,” “likes the environment,” “works in labs with black sinks,” “dissects things,” and “has crazy mad scientist hair cuts.” Clearly my understanding needed some polishing.

I hadn’t had any experience with biology since my freshman year of high school and even those memories seem vague and unclear. The jar I felt upon embarking on this journey was no surprise.

Joanna Eberts

Results
Introduction to Biology — Lecture

The first part of my experience took place in the largest classroom I have ever sat in at RIT; it looked like it was designed for four billion students. When the skinny hand hit 12, the professor, Dr. Harvey Pough, began in a raised tone to triumph over student conversations. His pace launched instantly, starting off from wherever the class must have left off the previous week.

The lecture was on carbohydrates and glycosides. Beyond that, with the saturation of terms (ranging from Hydroxyls to Polysaccharides), drawings, and symbols of the specific compounds, I found it nearly impossible to decipher a translation.

The hour concluded with a brief, survey-style quiz on the day’s lesson. I answered all but one (by sheer luck) incorrectly. Dr. Pough ended by simply stating, “If that all makes sense to you, you’re in really good shape.” Needless to say, I was sunk.

Introduction to Biology — Lab
Determined to make up for my poor performance in the lecture, I embarked to Dr. Dina Newman’s lab section. Upon entering, my brown plaid shirt and jeans made me the pink elephant in a room full of white lab coats.

There I worked closely with a group of three students whose area of study ranged from Environmental Science to Bioinformatics to Biotechnology - Bioinformatics Option. The group, which I unexpectedly intruded upon, had been working on a project designing dog food containing 30% carbohydrates.

We sat at the table quietly grinding beans and corn in our mortars and pestles for 20 minutes. I was an outsider in their world; the table was our stagecoach and I played the part of the Ringo Kid. John Wayne’s words, “you can’t break out of prison and into society in the same week,” rang through my ears. Regardless, our silence slowly faded the more comfortable we became with each other. They taught me in ways I could comprehend, explaining to me that the little sucker thing was actually a micropipette and that a centrifuge separates a solution into layers.

When asked how they had learned everything so quickly, they explained that they practiced using water. According to David Vizcarra, a first year Biotechnology — Bioinformatics Option major, “Basically all our labs are the same [in procedure].”

Still, I doubt I could survive on my own next time around.

Shadowing
As if I wasn’t in far enough over my head, I decided to shadow Amanda Souza, a fourth year Biology major who was currently working in a research lab also headed by Dr. Newman. The lab consists of a three-part study on age-related hearing loss. It specifically looks at the relationship between hearing loss and connexins, a gap junction protein that bridges the space between cells.

In order to exponentially increase the number of DNA copies within her samples, Souza performed a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Afterwards, she began a process called a sequencing reaction. The results would be shipped to the University of Rochester in order to identify the specimen’s base sequences. These results would then be read, recorded, and utilized as controls for future experiments.

Next, Souza moved to a glass box-like chamber that immediately struck something in my memory. “Like CSI,” I said. She replied, “Yeah, kind of.” There she performed a Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) which involved combining an enzyme with the PCR product and adding the result to an agarose gel. Hooking the chamber to a power supply, she performed electrophoresis, which allowed her to separate DNA molecules using the charge carried through the agarose gel. Later, the gel was removed, photographed, and examined; the photograph allowed her to locate where the added enzyme HincII cut the DNA.

Joanna Eberts

For those who have forgotten their high school biology, DNA is made up of a large series of base pairs. These base pairs are composed of four building blocks: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). Biologists will look for specific sequences of these four substances when studying genomes.

It seemed like an extensive process for a picture, but Souza reassured me, stating, “I can then look at the people’s gel bands to see if they have a CA or a CC or an AA.” The key is to look at where the enzyme cut the DNA band. Each band is composed of 365 base pairs before it’s cut. Once the enzyme has done its job, the varying lengths of the fragments will identify the particular sequencing. The DNA samples are then divided into one of those three groups (CA, CC, or AA) and data from a hearing test within each group is examined. The goal is to find a correlation between certain genetic types and hearing loss.

When we moved to a new room to photograph the gel, trays of half-dissected squids from a Developmental Biology class lined the tables mocking my preconceived notions of this vastly complex major.

Conclusion
What was gained from all this? For one thing, I certainly picked up some new vocabulary. Another thing I came across, as expected, is that the Biology field is much more complicated than I ever could have guessed. With seven degrees making up the undergraduate program, it’s easy to become lost while attempting to lean back for the big picture. This experiment barely even scuffed the surface.

On a smaller scale, similarities were exposed between the lives of bio and film students; our majors and careers are structured similarly. As Souza explained to me, the challenge of working your way up to running a research lab and receiving grants, I couldn’t help but see the parallel to selling scripts to a studio or “making it” as a director. When reduced to the basics, we’re all trying to pursue our interests and make them into a career.

Overall, the experiment was a gratifying experience. Though, and almost to my disappointment, not a single one of them I met had a mad-scientist hairdo upon them.

Maegan Gindi

From Under the Microscope

Abstract
Upon seeing a film major shooting a mock battle scene on the Greek lawn as their final project, a science major walking down the Quarter Mile to their Organic Chemistry final might say the film student has it easy. However, both majors have banes to every benefit.

For example, there is a lack of individual creativity in the daily tasks of a Biotechnology career such as plating E. coli while, for a film major, each production can be made unique and exciting. However, in biotechnology, the mass marketability of goods such as medication and its appeal to others regardless of personal conviction is an advantage. In the film industry, a production’s success is based on pleasing many individual tastes.

At first glance, film seemed to be all about some crazy person with a megaphone yelling, “Let’s run that again. And this time with feeling!” This, along with Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller break dancing during outtakes, is what I picture when I think about what transpires behind the scenes.

Results
It was 10:30 a.m. and I was optimistic about working with a group of mostly third year film majors on the set of Dan Sullivan’s first comedy. After John Howard introduced me to the crew, his lips pinched into an unsettling grin as he abandoned me at the set. Feeling somewhat like an 18-yearold kicked out of the house, I was out of my element and didn’t know what to expect.

Joanna Eberts

For my first task as a new crew member, I was sent to “steal” a desk from the Liberal Arts building and take it back to the film site in Building Seven. So John Theroux, Lindsey Berkebile, and I “found” a desk. Between the Liberal Arts building and the set, the three of us were forced to share an intimate moment in an elevator. I won’t go into detail, but trust me: We bonded.

Once back at the set, I was given a crash course in film terminology. I learned that a “stinger” is an extension cord, an “apple box” is an all-purpose step stool, and a “boom pole” is a long stick with a microphone at the end. Erik Kandefer, the gaffer and lone fourth year, then gave me the rundown of three-point lighting, which uses a key light, a fill light, and a back light. The key light is used as the main light source. The fill light is used to balance the key light, and the back light adds flare.

Once I had learned the basics, I was put to work as a boom man. As I shouted, “frameline!” to Aurora Gordon, the camerawoman, she was in the process of helping the gaffer position the correct lighting. Once perfect, she confided in me that she was “an illumination ninja.” Looking embarrassed about her last comment, she proceeded to talk me through keeping the boom out of the shot. The job didn’t sound too difficult at first, but imagine holding your arms above your head and remaining completely steady while holding a several-pound, long object, monitoring the frame-line, and being silent for indeterminable stretches of time. It gets tiring.

“Crafts” or snacks are another stark difference between the two majors. “[They’re like] sex in the mouth” said Brendan Nagle, and they’re a critical element on a film set. General hostility or discontent forms among the other crew members if proper crafts aren’t provided. In contrast, if someone were to bring crafts to a bio lab, they would not be met with affection.

Around 3:30 p.m., I felt that my booming talent had reached its peak and I was done. At this point I learned that the crew had actually started pretty late that day. Not only did they work all day the day before, but they were also booked all day the next day. On that note, I inhaled a complimentary sub, provided by my megaphone-less yet gracious director and fled the scene to reflect on my experience.

Joanna Eberts

Conclusion
Admittedly, I thought film students had it easier. Although, after working with some of them, I see the untold effort put into writing a script, filming, and editing the footage. From what I encountered, unlike bio majors, film majors definitely put in more time outside of class and labs than I do. Usually, I can put aside projects until the next time I work on them. Film students seem to have to continuously tweak their projects until they get them right.

The question of whether certain majors are “easier” than others really depends on the type of person you are. Although I had fun, I won’t be switching majors any time soon. I love photography but I don’t have the patience to edit all my photos. Film students are usually very creative. Therefore, one may really enjoy biology but be unable to get his mind around some of the hard-coded and detailed facts necessary to succeed in that degree.

Overall, I would say that a Biotechnology — Bioinformatics Option major is easier than film — or at least, it is for me. It’s really something I enjoy doing on a daily basis, and I don’t mind the hard work of memorizing facts and terms. Still, I would imagine a film major would say something similar based on the same principle.