Men of Merck, Make Room for a Lady

As many of you have already heard, I recently accepted an offer as Staff Engineer with Merck & Co.'s Manufacturing Division in West Point, PA. Because bioengineering is the only engineering major with more women than men, I tend to forget what a male-dominated field engineering is. That veil was abruptly lifted during my visit to Merck. In the course of my six-hour interview, the only women I met were the secretary and the HR representative. Even during lunch, I saw a rare female face speckled in the crowd of men. I remember leaving the site thinking "this team really needs a woman"... lo and behold, three weeks later, I'm proud to say that it looks like that woman will be me. As the majority of my friends are males and engineers, it is needless to say that I am excited about my future working environment. Me strutting around in heels as the rare female on a floor of 80 engineers? And all of this happening at one of the top-ten pharmaceutical companies in the world? Let the good times begin. :-)

Pompous joking aside, I am actually very nervous about this position. Not only is this my first time working in industry, I am leaving behind my five years of training in bioengineering and trekking out into a completely different route: operations. Although it's a biotech company, the position I'm taking on has nothing to do with bioengineering. In short, I will be joining a team of internal consultants who optimize the vaccine sterilization process and fix it when something goes wrong. I'm a strong believer (and hopefully, practicer) of life-long learning, and I am sure my bioengineering education will always be there if I choose to call on it, otherwise I would never have accepted a position that is basically the ideal job for an IEOR graduate.

And finally, not to ignore the obvious, but my acceptance of this position does make me a not-so-temporary resident of Philadelphia. In January, I vowed to love Philly, and Philly has been loving me back. I finally feel at home, and Philly's food obsession has started to suck me in as well. For the first time, I will acknowledge, that there is the slightest possibility that I may never call California home again, but that chance is very small. And considering how wonderful winter and spring breaks have been, I must say I'm enjoying coming home and treating California like a tourist. Obviously not as great as seeing my loved ones on a regular basis, but great nevertheless. And the best part about having awesome friends in multiple places is that when something great like this happens, you get to celebrate many times over.

Peace, Love, and Biotech,

:-)

Slippery Slope to Socialism

My thoughts on President Obama's proposed healthcare reform are ambivalent. For all practical matters- having everyone insured, and preventing the rise of insurance premiums- I believe it is great. However, I simultaneously feel that government takeover of healthcare comes from a very relaxed reading of the powers granted in the Constitution.

Because the President's bold moves in healthcare and economic reform have philanthropic intentions, I have ignored the accusations of socialism he has been barraged with. However, an article I read in the New York Times today made me reconsider what (I realize I may lose many friends over this next statement) Glenn Beck, amongst others, have said about him.

The article, found here, was talking about the Obama administration's plan to reduce childhood obesity. What gave me trouble was this: "In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare." The strong language (banned, required) seems unnecessarily dictatorial. Again, like healthcare reform, this plan has a great purpose, but its implementation involves a restriction of freedom.

Don't get me wrong, I know obesity is a big problem in this country, and I applaud Michelle Obama for taking on this effort. But I believe education is the way to go, not legislation. Inform the public, inform the children, inform their parents. Countless times on subways I have seen teenage parents giving their children soda and fries, and it's all I can do not to bust out diagrams showing the progression of atherosclerosis and diabetes. Once the public has been informed, it is their decision to eat healthier or continue with junk food- it is their right. No matter how loosely you interpret the Constitution, nowhere does it grant the federal government the right to restrict our diets.

Normally I could care less about what the average American eats, as long as I eat healthy, and teach my friends and family to do the same. If someone wants to eat McDonald's to their fast-approaching grave, they can knock themselves out, it's just natural selection at play. Now here's the catch: if healthcare is government-funded, and my tax dollars are paying to give Joe Krispy Kreme multiple balloon angioplasties, suddenly the diet of 304 million people becomes my problem. Socialism is self-perpetuating.

So, it makes me rather unhappy to say, that I do believe the Obama administration is heading down the slippery slope to socialism. I don't believe it is intentional or ill-minded, but I acknowledge it is happening. If a few administrations of strict governmental regulation are what we need to get the economy back to Clinton years, then it might be a welcome change.

Politics and the Destructive Power of the Internet

As scandalous story after scandalous story unfolds about politicians caught on camera in compromising situations, all I can think is how lucky the current thought leaders of our nation are. Most of their young adulthood, i.e. the time in life they were likely the wildest, was pre-internet, pre-commercialization of digital cameras, and pre-Facebook. The only way they would get pictures in digital format, and thus susceptible to the viral spread of Youtube videos, was if someone cared enough to scan and send them.

Our generation, on the other hand, was raised with .jpgs, not negatives, and emails, not letters. With the ease of sharing information, be it forwarding an email or clicking the "Upload to Facebook" button now ubiquitous on smartphones, who really knows how far their personal information has spread? A young parent uploads a picture of their newborn minutes after the birth, and thus begins the digital documentation of that child's life.

But think about how screwed we are. Media will do anything for a juicy story, and opponents will do anything to debunk you. But how vigilant can we be about the whereabouts of our information? Sure, you can block people from seeing your pictures on Facebook, and you can change your email password on a weekly basis if you want. But what about the other end? Who's to stop that vengeful ex-lover from spreading compromising pictures? Or that bitter colleague who you got promoted over from sharing out-of-context bits of conversation?

It doesn't even have to be that drastic, the simplest things can bring you down years later. Imagine you're in college, meet a friend of a friend in a bar, you each knock back a couple of drinks, and by the end of the night you're best friends and posing for pictures together. You go home and forget about this person. But 20 years later, when you're a successful lawyer and running for a state congressional seat, your opponent finds this old picture, and points out to the world that your "best friend" from college is now an active member of the US Communist Party, and there go your ratings. The most inconsequential acts can have catastrophic repercussions. It's a frightening thought, isn't it?


While Massachusetts voters have shown that posing nude for a Cosmo center-fold doesn't exclude you from senatorship, this is definitely an exception- nude photos and politicians generally don't go over well. My advice for all you aspiring politicians and world leaders: run the other way every time you see a camera.