> minimal experiments to show people that will convince them of far reaching theories. For me that is the true measure of expertise in an educator. For me, som

> minimal experiments to show people that will convince them of far reaching theories. For me that is the true measure of expertise in an educator. For me, some of the best lectures I had in grad school were the ones that basically said “we know X because of this experiment”. And then went into the details of the experiment and the results. It’s simultaneously exciting and scary to learn how easy and simple many experiments are. To this day though, the thing that really surprises[1] me is how timing affects a field. For example, in my field (molecular biology), the technique of geometric amplification of DNA by PCR was widely available before I was in undergrad. This was a tool we took for granted. However, for my undergrad advisor, it was still a new-ish technique that was exciting. In grad school, Sanger sequencing machines were widely available, so we could directly sequence DNA quickly and easily. But the lab I was in still had the equipment and ability to run large sequencing gels to sequence DNA manually. By the time I was done with grad school, high throughput sequencing (NGS) and the human genome were completed. New students now take both of these things for granted. Knowing the full (ish) sequence of an organisms genome makes many experiments significantly easier (or even possible!). CRISPR/cas9 technology is the same - a tool that has come of age within the past decade or so. But these are resources and techniques that new students can just accept as available. They aren’t magic and novel to them… they are just another tool to be used to answer their questions. [1] surprises isn’t quite the right word… impresses? Actually… encourages or amazes might be the better word to use. I find this flow of progress amazing to watch.