In relation to the post regarding the The Great Wall of Vagina by Rachel on September 26th:
When we got read Scheman's article I immediately thought about how the community could get better involved into the sciences without scientists needing to take time to try and teach everyone the intricacies of their expertise. There is a video online somewhere that I was once showed about a Physics professor that was asked in an interview to explain how magnets worked. The professor ended up going into a ten minute long rant about how much questions like that were impossible to answer for someone that is not in the related field. His talk involved how each bit of information that he could give to the interviewer would lead to another question that would end up requiring more and more information to get a clear picture across. After seeing this video and after reading Scheman's article it made me think about HOW exactly would be the best way to get the community involved without sacrificing time and money. I decided that in my mind, the best way would be word of mouth. Get the people involved that WANT to be actively involved, and then let them relay the information. Then they have a bigger stake in the process because they are actively including other people in the community without taking up tax-payers money and precious time.
Strangely, this made me think of The Great Wall of Vagina. The idea of this art piece was to show that all vaginas are different, and that the idea that any one is better or more beautiful than the other is just ignorant. It is also to combat the idea of media power and how the things we are told are not always accurate. Forty some women posed and gave the artist access to their most private of areas to get this message across. They recognized there was a problem, and they got DIRECTLY involved. This is huge, especially when thinking about community-based research. It is the desire to get involved that is key in this issue. As a science major, and someone deeply devoted into science, the idea of community-based research scares me. I see massive losses of time due to technicalities and having to educate masses of people about the basics before being able to bring them into the project. But, I also see huge promise with the idea. The promise of a more widely spread science system. People that want to get involved can have an outlet to get involved into without having to spend thousands and thousands to get the basic education that would be required. The experience alone can help raise their abilities to get higher paying jobs, which hopefully will help them get out of the destitute areas they tend to inhabit. Those that actively get involved can then relay the message to the ones that do not have the time nor the funds to get involved themselves, and they will have more at stake with the project because they are the ones that the others will count on for the basis of their information. Because the involved have a direct correlation to the area, not only will they be more trusted because of neighborly ties, but they will be more trusted because they are affected by the problems as well. The idea of getting people involved that WANT to get involved should be the main goal of community-based research. I think if we can achieve that, then we have achieved something great.