More PMHS Work

Coming soon once public release is approved.

The past couple of months have been challenging on both the technical and mental front. I returned to working on PMHS-related projects, this time in closer proximity to the people who donated their bodies to science. The meticulous preparation and the stress embedded in test setups are all in service of data, and with PMHS, some of that data takes considerable time to materialize. In an effort to extract preliminary insight, I built a small piece of software to isolate the skeleton from DICOM images, which introduced an entire learning curve at once: a new data format, new knowledge in human tissue, organs, Hounsfield units and scan rendering, new Python libraries, and a new quality checklist to validate the work.
When the task was first pitched to me, curiosity and excitement got the better of my judgment. Once I started, however, I quickly realized I had no training, experience, or prior exposure that would prepare me to examine a deceased human from multiple angles, let alone to set aside their humanity and treat them as a data repository.
I had a few conversations with peers and collaborators on the subject. Some employed dissociation, others claimed genuine indifference, and a few were candid about the weight of it. The consensus seemed to be that I needed to arrive at a place where the scans were pure data and the focus was purely technical.
Having spent the last four years working with datasets across different contexts, including machine learning, the ethical dimension was never far from my thinking: the sourcing and use of databases, the responsibility of the R&D engineer to remain transparent throughout the process, and the reality that capability does not confer justification, particularly in an environment where foreseeable mistakes persist precisely because the threshold for concern is treated as negotiable.
One argument that circulated was that when a person consents to donating their body to science, they relinquish control over its specific use. Their family does not necessarily know where the body will end up, and anonymity is maintained through a de-identification pipeline. Under that logic, whether the body is used for a training dataset, a crash test, or a classroom exercise is immaterial. The consent is total and the purpose is scientific.
That logic, however sound, did not resolve my agitation. I have to credit the project lead, R., who listened to my concerns without minimizing them, shared what had worked for him, and gave me adequate time and room to find my own footing.
In the end, I got through it, delivered feedback-incorporated updates, and produced a robust final version. Several things made that possible:
- Rather than starting with the lab's own data, I used the Visible Human Project from Harvard Dataverse to build and troubleshoot the program. The repository provides anatomical components rather than complete bodies, which gave me gradual exposure and allowed me to develop a proof-of-concept before working with a full human scan.
- I abandoned my peers' coping strategies, because dissociation and soldiering through did not hold up for me. I accepted that after roughly two hours of sustained work, I needed to stop, and sometimes to cry, and I gave myself that without reticence. I paced myself, took breaks. I already had a meditation practice and that came in particularly handy as well.
- I gave the PMHS subjects names drawn from thinkers and scientists I admired growing up. That helped me stay connected to their agency in choosing to donate, the generosity that made the work possible, and the purpose behind it all.
- I kept other projects running in parallel to shift the cognitive register and interrupt the accumulation of that specific kind of mental weight.
- After hours, I brought Sonny to my desk, my energetic and mischievous beagle, who imposed breaks, demanded walks and sprints and attention, and provided what was arguably the most effective emotional reset of the entire process, carrying me through to the stage where I was working on full-body scans and examining the intricate details of the skeleton before and after impact.
I cannot say with certainty that I would approach a similar assignment with the same enthusiasm, but I know I would get through it. I also came away with a more honest sense of how far naive excitement and scholarly motivation toward a totally novel field can carry me before the full reality of a project catches up. What I am most grateful for is that I surfaced the difficulty early, had professional support alongside me, and found a way through that was genuinely mine.