What they mean is that they have a need for someone who does what I do.  In any company – actually in life in general – there are moments when one thinks – I wish there was someone whose job it is to do exactly this.  I wish there was a machine that could deliver this precise thing. Where THIS is something that you would love to have done but don’t have the time or inclination to do.

Then I turn up – and it is my job to do it – and they are ever so grateful; but it’s not about me.  It feels so personal, this great big whump of warmth and appreciation, but really? It’s not about me.

On the other hand if life is all about people, and business is all about relationships, then really, it is personal.  In fact we all know that the warmth is pointless and the gratitude will turn to a sour sort of disappointment if I did not take it personally. But not that sort of personally.   How would I define it?

I make it my responsibility to try and promise what I can deliver and no more than that. I try and be aware of what my remit is, and when I stay within my boundaries I can take it as personally as works for me. Because even though I am a worker, I am also a person. Because even though I am a person, I also work.

My son is not deathly ill.  He has a low grade chronic problem that affects his quality of life because it affects his sleep and his appetite.

This morning he reported to the NHS for an allergy test, the skin prick test.

The system when we arrive. He has an appointment so his file is in a pile with other files in a basket that supports, but does not contain, the pile. From previous appointments I know that the file contains labels with his name that can be affixed to samples if needs be.  And other routing information.

Paper files seem cumbersome if I consider the level to which dentists have my records electronically catalogued. But paper files are human shaped, they are physical, they are able to be carried and handed between various levels in the organisation. I can see that the receptionist seems reassured that everything is in place by the fact that the file is there.

We had 12 allergens tested plus a control. Numbered clear tape is pasted on the skin of the forearm and blob-lets of clear to golden liquid are dropped next to an appropriate number. Then (using a clean one each time) a sharp ended metal object is pressed into the drop and through to break the skin below. Tissue paper draped over the top soaks, dabs away the excess and we are sent out to wait for 10 minutes. While his body responded, or didn’t as the case may be.

A raised area like a nettle sting would indicate that an allergic reaction has taken place.  Result? Only the control showed this response, the others were either unaffected or a just a little red.

It’s a little like homeopathy, or the reverse, or being in court because I am the witness. I know that he has sneezing and phlegm-y snorting wheezing asthma episodes and I know (I think I know) they are brought on by the dust in the house and refreshers sweeties and “other stuff”. I know that his asthmatic wheezing coughing needs to be alleviated with an inhaler one or two times a month. But the skin prick tests say he is not allergic to twelve specific things: not to mould and house dust mites and cats and milk and eggs and… …and early trees and late trees and grasses…

So far I have not experienced useful science. This is not a scienctific method because it is not comprehensive.

I would apply a more comprehensive sorting algorithm – one of the first algorithms that I ever had to code – I would want to have mixed reagents. Mix A and Mix B and the reaction to one or the other would guide me to further tests. Is the way that science is used not logical?