Insecurities addressed

I haven't written for a while, but I didn't want to be one of those people who just write something because they haven't for a while and actually have nothing to say.

At the start of the week I submitted my first Alumni Association piece. I focused it on the 'accidental' nature of the discovery, and how science often works that way etc. I got an email back from the editor today saying that although the piece was interesting, it wasn't quite the focus they were going for, it would be better to pique readers' interest if the question was “How will the discovery affect me and my health?” So she wondered if I would be happy if we used my original student newspaper article with a couple of pieces of the new article spliced in.

I understood, but I was frustrated and a little disappointed. I didn't want to write more news; I was hoping I'd get to explore something more. Of course I'm happy to have the experience and such, and will work harder to make future articles to their liking, but it also shapes the kind of writing I want to produce one day.

In the email, the editor said 'Just be sure to keep in mind the questions that most appeal to our readers: “How does this research/discovery affect my health, happiness, family, pocketbook, or understanding of the world?”' And this is the crux of most news writing these days: 'So what?' But I wish I could write more about things that are just...interesting, I love things that are not what people think of usually, for example this issue of how many new discoveries in science are made by 'accident'. The things I love learning about most are concepts or ideas I never thought about before, and this is what I love writing about too. I suppose what I'm saying is really I'd like to be a science writer rather than a science journalist per se, but see journalism as a passage to this. And journalism can be fun too, and can provide opportunities for further scope, such as the Lawrence Krauss article... but news can be so stuffy. I should try the features section of the student paper some day... but I doubt they'd be so interested in my science musings either.

Sometimes it's hard to have depression and to start a new direction. Depression makes a person feel worthless, useless, stupid and a let-down to others in every day life as it is let alone with this pressure of trying to succeed in something you've never tried before. Even if the logical part of my mind knows I'm still learning, and that I have to pitch to the right audience and it will take time to get these things right... it doesn't stop the chemically-imbalanced part having a tantrum.

Well, to cheer myself up I've decided to post here the original version of the article I wrote about Dr Lamb for the Alumni Association, since there shouldn't be any copy-write issues.

__________

How did a cancer researcher end up discovering an amino acid that plays a vital role in the body’s immune response, potentially boosting vulnerable people’s disease-fighting power? It seems a world away from investigating how cell growth can get out of control, leading to cancerous tumours, but for Dr. Richard Lamb the discovery was a happy consequence of routine experiments throwing up extraordinary results. Lamb, an associate professor from the department of oncology at the Cross Cancer Institute, explained that although the route of inquiry he took to discover the role of the amino acid arginine in the immune response was a departure from his normal work, it was the logical response to a discovered question. It had to be solved, at least in part, and Lamb’s lab had the power to solve it.

“There’s different types of scientists; there’s scientists that study one question and go to a very deep level to understand it; and then there’s scientists who are more the problem identifiers/solvers, they go from one problem to the next. I’ve done a bit of both [...] but I prefer the identifying a new problem.”

In this case, while testing the removal of amino acids from normal cells, Lamb found a breakdown in the system that attracts infection-fighting macrophages to the site of infection. The question then became which amino acid was causing this effect? Removing arginine from other biochemical systems was known to block signalling processes, so a set of experiments was designed to test the effect of arginine in the immune response. The results were clear; arginine played a major role, although the exact mechanism is still to be determined. But, reaching this conclusion from a series of experiments branching from unsuccessful investigation into another system was remarkable.

Lamb is enthusiastic about the workings of science, and believes the mantra of science funding bodies should be ‘people, not projects’. Real scientific progress is rarely made within the confines of a set proposal, carried through to the letter to the very end, producing the exact result first aimed for. If this were true, his lab would never have discovered the critical role of arginine, which certainly has profound implications for human health. The potential benefits include the treatment of undernourished people, intensive care patients and even arthritis sufferers, if an excess of arginine is found to cause an overreaction of the immune system.

However, Lamb’s lab will leave these deeper issues to other researchers and return to focusing on its original purpose of working out the mechanism by which cell growth is controlled by a complex pathway of chemical signalling. Normal cell growth is limited, but some part of this pathway breaks down in many cases of cancer, causing runaway growth. There are still many problems to be identified and solved.

“The abnormalities that are found in cancer just present opportunity for basic researchers like me to try and delve deeper into understanding what’s happening normally, to then understand what’s going on in cancer.”

No study is completed by one person though, and on the scientific journey from cancer to immunity Lamb took with him many colleagues in labs across Europe and in particular his post-doctoral fellow, Virginie Mieulet. Mieulet has now moved on to her own lab, and will hopefully continue to investigate the importance of arginine. Any further progress to bring the benefits of arginine to the real world will require collaboration between many experts in a range of fields.

__________

For the writing class this week we work-shopped in groups the second drafts of our essays. The guy I was partnering with last week re-wrote his piece absolutely wonderfully; he really did give a personal insight into his 'relationship' with Mohammed and the result was astounding. I wish I had the right to post his story here, it was truly great. My own story... I think it's ok, it will go through one more draft, then I will probably post it. I think it's an ok start, but I have to branch out and improve for the next assignment. I already have ideas for that.

Analysing writings

The Krauss article is now published, and I must say it contains more Krauss than I imagined it would. In my original version, all the stuff about the physics symposium was first, as I thought that's what they wanted, about the students and all. But maybe it helped that Simon edited this one, and he was nodding a scribbling and lot while sitting next to me in the talk, so I think he was influenced by Krauss' words too. Which is good, but it made me read the article several times to make sure I felt comfortable having my name on the top of it. I figured out a way to resolve this issue though: I imagine that if the editor had tried to claim it as their own, would that be plagiarism of my work? And then when I compare the article side-by-side with my original draft (yes I am that anal) I always find that almost all of it is mine, but it's surprising how much difference ordering makes to a piece.

I also had another piece in the most recent student newspaper, about how long it takes to become self-motivated to exercise. It takes a long time, is the answer, more than six months. Motivation is a problem for me these days, so I'm using my dedication to science to make me exercise instead! Soon I will have to start my daily squats to record the effect on my knee pain. It's quite an intense routine, building up to 250-300 squats in one session. I figure all I have to do is keep telling myself that if I don't do the exercise I will mess up the researcher's experiment, and I can't pretend I did the exercise when I didn't, because that's falsifying data!

I just returned from my second non-fiction writing class, where we were paired up to critique each other's essay first draft. The essay is about a person who has influenced us or we have strong feelings about. The guy I got paired up with couldn't have had a more different essay than mine. I wrote a very personal essay about my relationship with an ex-boyfriend; he wrote about the history and importance of the prophet Mohammed. Neither of us were English students; I an earth scientist (with a tendency to over-explain rather than abstractly hint) and he a history student (which explained the impersonal tone of his essay). I was my typical twitchy self, nervous to offer advice on anyone else's writing, since I was new to this business. But, as usual I blurted it all out anyway. I found his essay impersonal, how was he influenced directly by Mohammed? He told me he made a concious decision (but didn't know if it was necessarily a good one) to not talk about his moments of doubt, and his experiences. I told him directly I wished he would put those things in, for one it would make the piece more relate-able [I can't believe that's not a word!], and secondly it would be so interesting. His essay so far was more about how Mohammed's history relates to the world around him, but I was so intrigued by the prospect of a Muslim (who had grown up in the States) revealing his intimacy with the religion on the page that I tried to encourage him to open up about it. I hope he does for the next draft, it would make a very compelling piece.

Sloppy journalism

The day began well; I went and re-interviewed the amino acids/cancer researcher for the Alumni Association, this time in a pub. We agreed it was a lot nicer than the Cross-Cancer Institute where he works, since it's an integrated research facility and cancer hospital; he told me he once saw a dead body wheeled in front of him in the hallways. I said perhaps it helped remember what you're working for. He agreed to a point, but said it's also hard to concentrate on experiments with 'that sort of thing' always around the next corner.

We paused for a moment then continued chatting, about the article, about Alberta, about science. We talked a lot, which is good, since I haven't exactly decided how to shape the article yet. But it doesn't need to be submitted for a couple of weeks, so I have time to work out the particulars.

I drank two pints of 'pop' with the researcher, having only eaten a bowl of cereal, then foolishly decided I could walk all the way to pick up my package in the middle of industrial Edmonton without lunch. A touch of the shakes later and I found myself in McDonalds, reading a discarded copy of today's Edmonton Sun. Then I came across an article that really got on my nerves. It was the antithesis of everything I believe in regarding integrity in science reporting. The guy actually suggested Googling was a valid way to learn about the current state of climate science. I immediately decided to pen a reply, even if just for my own catharsis. The first draft was a bit 'angry', but hopefully I managed to tone it down :D

Anyway, here is the original article.

And here is my letter to the editor:

Peter Worthington’s article ‘Stormy weather for IPCC’ (20^th September 2010), if full of errors and assumptions, many of which could be refuted with basic research.

A recent report has deemed that the IPCC needs stricter controls to protect the integrity of its reports, but this in no way means the underlying science is called into question. This same conclusion was made by three separate independent reports into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit email leak; which found absolutely no evidence of misconduct, and again, no change to the strength of the underlying science linking human activities to climate change.

As for the ‘huge sums of money’ pulling climate scientists towards a supposed conspiracy, I encourage him to remember that climate change scientists began with the same basic earth science skills as oil exploration scientists, then let us ask who has more to gain? Climate scientists are not in it for the money.

It seems Worthington has made no effort on his part to do any independent research, and instead to simply regurgitate the assumptions of The Spectator. I’m sorry; he did do some of his own research, he Googled climate change. But if Worthington thinks that the blogosphere is the appropriate place to find out the current state of any science, where people are free to post any supposition they like without peer review, then he is seriously misguided.

Even Worthington’s ‘frivolous aside’ about cow farts shows his complete lack of care for the facts. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but much shorter-lived in the atmosphere. Even so, the rising rates of methane from cows are still due to human development; with more of the world eating burgers every day, more farting cows are required to provide them.

I agree that Dr. Pachauris should step down as the head of the IPCC body, but only because he has not been the best figurehead for integrity, not because there is anything wrong with the science of climate change the body portrays.

Finally, if Worthington thinks that we are too inferior to have impact on the planet, perhaps he should have flipped forward a few pages in his own newspaper and read about the gigantic gyre of plastic clogging the Pacific Ocean.

Yours,

Hayley Dunning

My first 'Big Deal'

Goodness, has all this happened in one week?? My journalistic endeavours have gone full speed ahead.

My meeting with the woman from the Alumni Association went exceptionally well, not least because she was a great lady, we chatted away, about writings and everything else, and she surprised me by having a profound love for British comedies, she was even obsessed with The Mighty Boosh! But the meeting ended most satisfactorily; she asked me if I would be willing to write one piece for their newsletter every month, for $100-150 a piece! I tried not to sound too enthusiastic, but it was difficult. Not only does this give me great experience and provide me some great cv fodder, but it gives me more writing freedom. News writing can be so stuffy and formulated, and you just have to report. But for this I will write for the 'Researcher Spotlight' and 'Campus Corner' sections, basically exploring fun stuff about campus, and writing about it from a first person perspective and with a little more flare. I can't wait. My first piece we agreed would be to go back and talk to the amino acids researcher I interviewed for the student newspaper, and talk to him more about how he does science, and how the discovery was an 'accident'.

It seems, however, that there's some weird animosity between the student newspaper and the alumni association. The alumni lady said she chose to contact me on a total whim, because she was looking for a way to involve students, and my article stood out immediately from the others in the paper. It can be a little...juvenile sometimes, but it is a student paper. But it is why I tend to stay in the news section, the editors are much more down to Earth and professional. When I later went to the student paper to talk to them about the logistics of using material I collected for their articles, the editor-in-chief was, uh, pretty derisive about the alumni publication. Could be interesting !

Then, a little later on, I was handed a last-minute assignment from the student paper that someone else pulled out of: to cover the graduate physics association's first symposium. Despite it being their first year, they'd managed to attract a prestigious keynote speaker: renowned physicist and author Dr. Lawrence Krauss. I was to interview the organiser of the event, chat to some of the students and cover the talk. When I called up the organiser to arrange an interview with her, she enthusiastically offered me an interview spot with the man himself the next day. "Uh, sure, that would be great!" I squealed as I put the phone down, ran around the apartment excitedly, than began panicking. This guy is a big deal. I mean, a really big deal, especially to someone like me. The guy is an ambassador for science and reason, critical thinking, and fighting scientific ignorance. My interview skills are definitely not up to this.

I was sure I could think of questions to ask him, both to satisfy the newspaper and my own curiosities, but I wasn't sure how I could ask these questions. I always knew interviewing would be my weak point, and I felt I hadn't really had enough practice yet. See, I'm confident with what I write, but I'm terrible at speaking, I'm an awful mutterer and stutterer!

But I sucked it up (and took a sleeping pill to ensure a steady night's sleep), and prepared my questions to the point of writing them down precisely to minimize stutter. The first port of call was Dr. Krauss' book signing, so I could interview the organiser while she had 10 minutes to spare. She was a delightfully enthusiastic girl, telling me that she was motivated to hold the symposium to spread the joy of physics:

“We love physics; we are passionate about what we do. We don’t do it for the money because we don’t make any, we do it for the pleasure, and we would like to share this with everybody else.”

While I was there, I thought I should take the opportunity to get some books signed. I bought 'Fear of Physics', because, frankly, I've always wanted to know more about string theory and whatnot, but physics has always eluded me, so I thought this would be a good place to start. As I got my books signed I thought I'd try some ad-libbing. He asked me what I was studying, I told him Earth science. I forewarned Dr. Krauss that we'd be meeting again; that I'd be interviewing him later. He said he always liked being interviewed by someone with some scientific knowledge. I immediately blurted out that I was trying to break into the world of science journalism, and he was my first 'Big Deal'. He said he'd try and make it easier for the both of us then.

I smiled nervously. It was perhaps a bit foolish to admit how nervous I was, but it was not that bad, coming from my mumbling mouth.

His schedule was tough that day, so he and his entourage were late for the interview time, and he was obviously a little agitated. I promised to be as quick as possible so he could relax before the big talk. I fluttered. He asked for a moment to drink some water and encouraged me to do the same. I tried to calm myself, then I started the interview.

I asked him the 'student newspaper' things; why did he come to the symposium, was he looking forward to the student poster session, what advice did he have for students? Then I got down to business.

I asked him about the possibility of warp drive. Not with the laws of physics the way they are I'm afraid.

I asked him what he thought of Stephen Hawking's recent assertion (on Larry King Live) that science can explain the universe without the need for a creator, and whether he thought more influential figures like him should speak out. He said that it was nothing new, and that the problem is that anything Hawking says is taken as a 'pronouncement from God (if you'll forgive the pun)', but the problem is his statements are one-liners, that have the ability to provoke thought and conversation, but are not fully communicative.

I said, that at a venue like this, when he talks about non-science, for the majority he is probably preaching to the converted, so how does he go about reaching the people sitting on the fence?

He thought about it for a bit. Then he said he hoped to perhaps raise people's awareness, and provide them with the tools to use in their own discussions.

Lastly, I asked the big one, almost purely for me. How does the media improve its science reporting?

Journalists, he said, need to treat science reporting like they treat other reporting. Be diligent, and don't be afraid to do the research, and most importantly, don't be afraid to make pronouncements when they are warranted. For example, no (credible) scientist would refute the truth of evolution, but most newspapers still have trouble speaking about the subject without fearing of upsetting religious sensitivities.

And that was that. I flopped back to the student newspaper offices in a daze and waited for the deputy news editor to join me for the keynote address (a nice guy called Simon). We headed over and I got out my notebook and voice recorder again. The talk was engaging, more about the blurring of scientific truth, and how we should all find our inner scientist to help us fight the forces of ignorance.

Anyway. I'd like to post more about the talk and such, but er, it's late and my cognitive abilities are waning. I'll be sure to post a link to the article when it's published though, although it doesn't contain enough Krauss as I'd like. A missed opportunity by the paper in my opinion. But! Hopefully I'll meet him again, further in my career, when I'm not such a stutterer.

Snippets

I think I've got a case of 'Fresher's Flu' – their enthusiasm and energy has somehow infected me with a will to 'do things'. There's so much to talk about I'm going to break this down into bite-sized chunks, so you don't get stuffed on science!

*****

I had a fascinating day yesterday.

It began with interviewing a cancer research scientist for a piece for the student newspaper. His work was interesting, but even more I liked the guy himself. At the end of the interview I asked the standard 'Do you have anything you want to add?' and he surprised me by saying he wanted to make a couple of points about science that the public aren't usually aware of. I perked up; this is my kind of thing. He wanted to make it clear that this study came about by 'accident', when the original phenomenon they were trying to study failed to show any significant results under experimentation. Instead, the control in the experiment turned up a result that was much more unexpected and intriguing. In science, he stressed, you have to be prepared to be wrong, accept that you are wrong, and move on to study the results that were 'real'. He also wanted to point out how collaborative the study was, with contributions from six labs across the world over three years. Beavering away in you lab on your own is a real stereotype of science, but that's not how it's done.

The piece should be published tomorrow, let's see how much of that stuff I got past my editor!

After the interview, he shared with me how much he loved doing his job – coming up with hypotheses, designing experiments, puzzling over the results, adapting the method... To him, that's what science was all about. By this time I had told him of my science journalist aspirations, and admitted to him that those things he described, those were the things I wasn't good at. But I still loved science, and was glad to hear all the fascinating things researchers get up to.

Next up, I went to an information session for a program called Let's Talk Science, for university students to communicate their knowledge and enthusiasm to school kids. I signed up to attend a training session, but I'm not sure exactly which of their specific programs I want to help out with yet. I'm not the most confident person for teaching a class by myself!

Lastly, I interviewed another researcher, this time for a piece about the psychology of exercise motivation. I love to hear about these kinds of things sometimes, less of the physics-lab-experiment type science, more relatable, more inspirational. The woman who conducted the research was pleasant, encouraging, and above all, a darn sight easier to interview than most scientists I've come across! While most of them have been open to interview, and personable, they have also had the tendency to ramble, a lot of the time off the point. It's partly my own lack of skills as an interviewer, not being able to control the conversation, as I often notice afterwards when I trawl through the transcript looking for some useful information! It's even more difficult over the phone, but this woman was a dream, answered each question with just the right amount of information, so that I could see the story clearly forming before me.

*****

In other news, I signed up for a study testing a new regime for treating a type of knee pain. I've had this pain on and off for about 10 years, which is a shockingly long time not to do something about it (shocking even to the researcher who screened me for eligibility earlier), but I suppose I just got used to it. Well, this seemed like the perfect solution: I get to help a fellow student out with their research and potentially ease my pain (which sometimes prevents me from sleeping, like everything else just now!). The therapy consists of six weeks of quite intense deep squats, so even if it doesn't cure my knees it'll give me great leg muscles! More about this as it goes along.

*****

Back to the student newspaper briefly, the last piece I had published is probably my favourite so far, I got a couple of compliments, but also it was just my kind of thing. The researcher I interviewed was the most rambling of them all so far, but luckily it was a subject I knew and understood, so it was easy for me to make a story out of it. Anyway, you can read it here.

Even better, I got an email today from someone at the University's alumni office, saying they read the piece with interest, and would I be interested in doing some freelance writing for their 'Researcher Spotlight' section of their monthly e-newsletter? Absolutely! I will meet with her tomorrow and hopefully pick up some more professional writing, and meet some more lovely scientists.

*****

Next, I'm excited to have got a place on a non-fiction writing course at the university that runs every Wednesday evening for the whole year. This will be great for developing my skills. So far with the student newspaper I've been too cautious to experiment with anything but news (also because the opinions and features sections are very student-orientated), but this will hopefully help me to not just be a science journalist, but a science writer.

*****

Finally (I know you're breathing a sigh of relief), an interesting news article came to my attention yesterday. The former UK science minister is calling for scientists to have a better dialogue with the public. At first I read the article with a furrowed brow, until I got to this bit:

"A study done a number of years ago of the then 15 European Union countries found that those nations scoring lowest on scientific understanding were in general the most unequivocally enthusiastic.

'We should not be surprised by this finding. A good education in science should lead people to ask questions about the impact of science,' according to Lord Sainsbury."

Then it started to make sense. It seems to me that science has thus done a pretty good job of making the public aware of ongoing science, but perhaps not about what that science actually means. Lord Salisbury talks about the public weighing up the risks and benefits of a science they see as impacting their lives, and insists they understand the risks but see no benefits to a lot of controversial topics. I'm not convinced this is the case. Risks in science are often based on a lot of 'ifs'; if one possible outcome comes into being, then it could cause many others, but it often depends on a lot of pathways that can't be accurately predicted. What I'm trying to get at is that any scientific finding or recommendation is always accompanied by caveats and uncertainties, and that's the thing the public don't always understand. In my opinion J

*****

I just remembered one last small thing! I went to a seminar about plagiarism today and the guy told an interesting story. A graduate student was caught falsifying data, and was severely punished, with two years' suspension. The student decided this was all wrong, and appealed on the grounds that falsifying data was 'not that serious'. The appeal board decided to increase the reprimand to a full expulsion from the university. Based on her behaviour and attitude, they couldn't be sure she wouldn't do it again; and falsifying data is just about the most serious crime there is in research.

Northern Adventures (and My Medication #2)

I couldn't resist one last trip of the summer.

The graduate student society in my department organised a field trip to the Northwest Territories, to check out one of the largest lead-zinc mines in Canada and the Alexandria Reef Complex, dating back to around 300 million years ago. The mine has been closed since the 1990s, but plenty of ore remains, and now metal prices are up again it's due to be re-opened soon. This means it was a final chance to roam around the old pits and pick it over for leftover goodies.

So we packed up a few hire cars and drove the ten hours north to a campsite near the town of Enterprise (a ramshackle town of only 90 or so colourful characters), just south of Great Slave Lake. The campsite was dreamily placed next to a waterfall on the Hay River, and in between tall pines we set up our tents and a roaring fire as the sky turned to a million stars blurred into the Milky Way.

The next day we set off for the mines. A quick introduction from our leader, a senior grad student, and we were off examining every rock for treasures. It didn't take us long to find some fantastic things, for example this rock chock-full of large calcite crystals:

The lead-zinc ore was concentrated in the host rock by circulation of hydrothermal fluids. Originally, the area was a coral reef, not far north

of the equator. The reef and the surrounding area were built-up of carbonate sediments, think warm, white, tropical beaches. While the rocks are strong, they can be reasonably easily dissolved, so that after some time pockets of emptiness develop, into which the metal-hosting fluids can gather. These leave areas dense with ore, and associated calcite, the remains of the fluid that didn't contain metals. These crystals are a stunning example (hiding under a rock we made a few boys turn over for us).

We also found numerous ore remnants: cubes of galena, veins of pyrite and sphalerite, and unexpectedly heavy rocks, dense with lead. For geologists, it was a giant playground ripe with beautiful samples.

But that's not to say we didn't do some learning too. In fact that was one of the things I enjoyed most about the trip. It seems like I long time since I learned something new just for the joy of it, and there's no better way than by picking up a rock and asking someone about it, and by looking at a long cliff face and reading thousands of years of Earth history.

The next day after the mine, we headed out on a journey through an ancient reef complex, full of bewildering extinct animals, some so perfectly preserved, but still mysterious in their mode of existence.

Here is a beautiful example of preserved corals. This type of coral doesn't exist today, these great reef-builders of the past succumbed to a great extinction event not long after this rock was created. This small example I found in a quarry we spent a happy hour or so digging around in. In fact, over two days we visited several quarries and roadcuts, things that most people just pass by, but are secret slices of history. Walking one simple roadcut for 50 metres took us through phases of the reef, from the edge where broken reef material tumbled down the continental slope, to productive mounds of reef containing primitive sponges, corals, brachiopods: a myriad of life.

Finally, after spotting from the car a bear, a moose, a beaver and a few falcons among the branches, the sky danced with green and finished off the trip in true northern style: with the Aurora Borealis.

******************************

In other news, I finally went to the doctor about my medication. I sat down and mumbled something about the studies I'd seen and what did she think about that? Her answer was along the lines of that you can find some studies that say that, and you can find studies that say the opposite, and improvements of this sort are difficult to measure. And she's seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that people have significantly improved with antidepressants. And the pills definitely do have some biochemical effect. I told her about my restless leg syndrome, possibly as a side effect of the pills, and she noted that I'd not had much of a routine this summer, with all the travelling, and prescribed me sleeping pills.

To be honest, I'm not best satisfied with this response. Anecdotal evidence like that she described doesn't really prove anything, especially as people 'feeling better' could just as easily be the result of the placebo effect. And prescribing me more pills seems to be just avoiding the problem.

OK, it's partially my fault for falling for that aspect of human nature that makes us revere figures like doctors and take their word as true wisdom. But talking it over with the group I realised how differently I should have handled it. Like the restless leg syndrome: my depression generally causes me to sleep excessively, not to feel insomnia like many do. This means that suddenly being awake all night with restless legs is almost certainly due to a biochemical effect of the pills rather than a mental issue. And by prescribing me this certain antidepressant in the first place is really just playing the odds; it turns out that which pill works depends on the make-up of your brain (which they can't know for sure until you die and they can cut the thing open), and the original prescription is just based on which works best for the majority of people.

So, what I really wanted out of this doctor's visit was a different antidepressant. Why didn't I just communicate that properly to my doctor? As my peers pointed out, they are not infallible experts, a lot is just trial-and-error guesswork, and in the end, who knows your body better than you? Ah, I will just try harder next time.