Today, I took a survey from the Registrar's office that was trying to assess my use of and opinions of various graduate-student oriented services on-campus, including the interactions I've had with my advisor and the department of Integrative Biology.
I've only been here two and a half months, so most of my responses were based on rather limited data, and there was some weird disconnect between some of my answers and other because some questions were specific to my "current program" and others were more broadly based on my "graduate career". So while I pointed out I had been at Guelph for only a short time, I responded to the questions about TAing based on my experiences at SFU. Oh well, I'm sure they'll still find my answers somewhat useful.
One section was a general list of questions about my satisfaction with various interactions I have had with faculty in this department, especially my advisor. These three questions, but especially the middle one, had me laughing:
The first two columns are "Did not occur" and "Not applicable", respectively. The next four columns are the usual choices of "Very Satisfied"; "Somewhat Satisfied"; "Somewhat Dissatisfied"; "Very Dissatisfied". It might be hard to read; the first question is "Recieved advice on research ethics in human subject research", the second is "Recieved advice on research ethics in the use of animals" and the third is "Recieved advice on intellectual property issues".
While my advisor and I have discussed (to great amusement) the ethical considerations of the use of animals in research, we've never really talked about research on humans or intellectual property issues. The funny part comes from those discussions:
"With insects, you don't have to worry about it. You can cut out their gonads, stick their balls in their mouth, and take pictures if you want. Nobody minds."
Which is funny because it's true (Note: I have yet to dissect out reproductive tissues and place them into the oral apetures of any animal). At least, I found it funny.