Making aspirin in the lab last week was an enticing, yet difficult experience. I have not worked in a lab since my sophomore year of high school, so following protocol was probably the most challenging part of the entire lab. For example, I did not realize that a lot of crystals needed to develop before we began filtering it out (this was towards the end of the procedure). As a result, I was very eager to begin filtration, but luckily Professor Greer stepped in and reminded me that more crystals need to form before we could move on to filtration.

I also found it difficult to follow instructions to-a-T when we were working with TinkerCad. I think the reason why it was difficult for me then, was because of the time constraint. Especially when making aspiring, there was very limited time for Professor Greer to demonstrate the procedure throughly and go through all the safety instructions. She wanted to give us as much time as possible to get the lab done.

Ultimately, my team and I got the lab done, and we created very pure aspirin. In completing this lab, something became very apparent to me, and that is the concept of reproducibility. A scientific finding cannot mean much if other people are unable to reproduce the results. If a researcher can do something only once, it’s not so much a finding, but rather a lucky trial. By the same hand, in order for other researchers (or students in an IDC 3002H class) to reproduce results, directions must be very clear and descriptive. If instructions are not clear, people’s health could be compromised, especially if other researchers are trying to reproduce drugs like aspirin.

Walking away from this lab, I realize the significance of scientific reproducibility, and also the obligation a researcher has to put forth clear and descriptive instructions on their experiments. Without either of these two elements, people’s health and also the progression of science itself is at stake.