Academic motherhood – what happens when you can't make it happen?

We need more openness about age‐related infertility as it is a particular risk for many female scientists in academia who feel that they have to delay having children. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training, Genetics, Gene Therapy & Genetic Disease

Balancing motherhood and a career in academic research is a formidable challenge, and there is substantial literature available on the many difficulties that scientists and mothers face (Kamerlin, 2016). Unsurprisingly, these challenges are very off‐putting for many female scientists, causing us to keep delaying motherhood while pursuing our hypercompetitive academic careers with arguments “I’ll wait until I have a faculty position”, “I’ll wait until I have tenure”, and “I’ll wait until I’m a full professor”. The problem is that we frequently end up postponing getting children based on this logic until the choice is no longer ours: Fertility unfortunately does decline rapidly over the age of 35, notwithstanding other potential causes of infertility.This column is therefore not about the challenges of motherhood itself, but rather another situation frequently faced by women in academia, and one that is still not discussed openly: What if you want to have children and cannot, either because biology is not on your side, or because you waited too long, or both? My inspiration for writing this article is a combination of my own experiences battling infertility in my path to motherhood, and an excellent piece by Dr. Arghavan Salles for Time Magazine, outlining the difficulties she faced having spent her most fertile years training to be a surgeon, just to find out that it might be too late for motherhood when she came out the other side of her training (Salles, 2019). Unfortunately, as academic work models remain unsupportive of parenthood, despite significant improvements, this is not a problem faced only by physicians, but also one faced by both myself and many other women I have spoken to.I want to start by sharing my own story, because it is a bit more unusual. I have a very rare (~ 1 in 125,000 in women (Laitinen et al, 2011)) congenital endocrine disorder, Kallmann syndrome (KS) (Boehm et al, 2015); as a result, my body is unable to produce its own sex hormones and I don’t have a natural cycle. It doesn’t take much background in science to realize that this has a major negative impact on my fertility—individuals with KS can typically only conceive with the help of fertility treatment. It took me a long time to get a correct diagnosis, but even before that, in my twenties, I was being told that it is extremely unlikely I will ever have biological children. I didn’t realize back then that KS in women is a very treatable form of infertility, and that fertility treatments are progressing forward in leaps and bounds. As I was also adamant that I didn’t even want to be a mother but rather focus on my career, this was not something that caused me too much consternation at the time.In parallel, like Dr. Salles, I spent my most fertile years chasing the academic career path and kept finding—in my mind—good reasons to postpone even trying for a child. There is really never a good time to have a baby in academia (I tell any of my junior colleagues who ask to not plan their families around “if only X…” because there will always be a new X). Like many, I naïvely believed that in vitro fertilization (IVF) would be the magic bullet that can solve all my fertility problems. I accordingly thought it safe to pursue first a faculty position, then tenure, then a full professorship, as I will have to have fertility treatment anyhow. In my late twenties, my doctors suggested that I consider fertility preservation, for example, through egg freezing. At the time, however, the technology was both extravagantly expensive and unreliable and I brushed it off as unnecessary: when the time comes, I would just do IVF. In reality, the IVF success rates for women in their mid‐to‐late 30s are typically only ~ 40% per egg retrieval, and this only gets worse with age, something many women are not aware of when planning parenthood and careers. It is also an extremely strenuous process both physically and emotionally, as one is exposed to massive doses of hormones, multiple daily injections, tremendous financial cost, and general worries about whether it will work or not.Then reality hit. What I believed would be an easy journey turned out to be extremely challenging, and took almost three years, seven rounds of treatment, and two late pregnancy losses. While the driving factor for my infertility remained my endocrine disorder, my age played an increasing role in problems responding to treatment, and it was very nearly too late for me, despite being younger than 40. Despite these challenges, we are among the lucky ones and there are many others who are not.I am generally a very open person, and as I started the IVF process, I talked freely about this with female colleagues. Because I was open about my own predicament, colleagues from across the world, who had never mentioned it to me before, opened up and told me their own children were conceived through IVF. However, many colleagues also shared stories of trying, and how they are for various—not infrequently age‐related—reasons unable to have children, even after fertility treatment. These experiences are so common in academia, much more than you could ever imagine, but because of the societal taboos that still surround infertility and pregnancy and infant loss, they are not discussed openly. This means that many academic women are unprepared for the challenges surrounding infertility, particularly with advanced age. In addition, the silence surrounding this issue means that women lose out on what would have otherwise been a natural support network when facing a challenging situation, which can make you feel tremendously alone.There is no right or wrong in family planning decisions, and having children young, delaying having children or deciding to not have children at all are all equally valid choices. However, we do need more openness about the challenges of infertility, and we need to bring this discussion out of the shadows. My goal with this essay is to contribute to breaking the silence, so that academics of both genders can make informed choices, whether about the timing of when to build a family or about exploring fertility preservation—which in itself is not a guaranteed insurance policy—as relevant to their personal choices. Ultimately, we need an academic system that is supportive of all forms of family choices, and one that creates an environment compatible with parenthood so that so many academics do not feel pressured to delay parenthood until it might be too late.     

Dr. Manners

Good manners make a difference—in science and elsewhere. This includes our social media etiquette as researchers. Subject Categories: S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, Methods & Resources, S&S: Ethics

Elbows off the table, please. Don’t chew with your mouth open. Don’t blow your nose at the table. Don’t put your feet up on the chair or table. And please, do not yuck my yum. These are basic table manners that have come up at some of our lab meals, and I have often wondered if it was my job to teach my trainees social graces. A good fellow scientist and friend of mine once told me it was absolutely our place as mentors to teach our trainees not only how to do science well, but also how to be well‐mannered humans. While these Emily Post‐approved table manners might seem old‐fashioned (I’m guessing some readers will have to look up Emily Post), I strongly believe they still hold a place in modern society; being in good company never goes out of style.Speaking of modern society: upon encouragement by several of my scientist friends, I joined Twitter in 2016. My motivation was mainly to hear about pre‐prints and publications, conference announcements and relevant news, science or otherwise. I also follow people who just make me laugh (I highly recommend @ConanOBrien or @dog_rates). I (re)tweet job openings, conference announcements, and interesting new data. Occasionally, I post photos from conferences, or random science‐related art. I also appreciate the sense of community that social media brings to the table. However, social media is a venue where I have also seen manners go to die. Rapidly.It is really shocking to read what some people feel perfectly comfortable tweeting. While most of us can agree that foul language and highly offensive opinions are generally considered distasteful, there are other, subtler but nonetheless equally—if not more—cringe‐worthy offenses online when I am fairly certain these people would never utter such words in real life. In the era of pandemic, the existence of people tweeting about not being able to eat at their favorite restaurant or travel to some destination holiday because of lockdown shows an egregious lack of self‐awareness. Sure it sucks to cancel a wedding due to COVID‐19, but do you need to moan to your followers—most of whom are likely total strangers—about it while other people have lost their jobs? If I had a nickel for every first‐world complaint I have seen on Twitter, I’d have retired a long time ago; although to be honest, I would do science for free. However, these examples pale in comparison with another type of tweeter: Reader, I submit to you, “the Humblebragger.”From the MacMillan Buzzword dictionary (via Google): a humblebrag is “a statement in which you pretend to be modest but which you are really using as a way of telling people about your success or achievements.” I would further translate this definition to indicate that humblebraggers are starved for attention. After joining Twitter, I quickly found many people using social media to announce how “humble and honored” they are for receiving grant or prize X, Y, or Z. In general, these are junior faculty who have perhaps not acquired the self‐awareness more senior scientists have. Perhaps the most off‐putting posts I have seen are from people who post photos of their NIH application priority scores right after study section, or their Notice of Awards (NOA). When did we ever, before social media, send little notes to each other—let alone to complete strangers—announcing our priority scores or NOAs? (Spoiler: NEVER)Some of you reading this opinion piece might have humblebragged at one or time or another, and might not understand why it is distasteful. Please let me explain. For every person who gets a fundable score, there are dozens more people who do not, and they are sad (I speak from many years of experience). While said fundable‐score person might be by someone we like—and I absolutely, positively wish them well—there are many more people who will feel lousy because they did not get funding from the same review round. When has anyone ever felt good about other people getting something that they, too, desire? I think as children, none of us liked the kid on the playground who ran around with the best new Toy of the Season. As adults, do we feel differently? Along these lines, I have never been a fan of “best poster/talk/abstract” prizes. Trainees should not be striving for these fleeting recognitions and should focus on doing the best science for Science’s sake; I really believe this competition process sets people up for life in a negative way—there, I’ve said it.Can your friends and colleagues tweet about your honors? Sure, why not, and by all means please let your well‐wishers honor you, and do thank them and graciously congratulate your trainees or colleagues for helping you to get there. But to post things yourself? Please. Don’t be surprised if you have been muted by many of your followers.It is notable that many of our most decorated scientists are not on Twitter, or at least never tweet about their accomplishments. I do not recall ever seeing a single Nobel laureate announce how humbled and honored they are about their prize. Of course, I might be wrong, but I am willing to bet the numbers are much lower than what I have observed for junior faculty. True humility will never be demonstrated by announcing your achievements to your social media followers, and I believe humblebragging reveals insecurity more than anything. I hope that many more of us can follow the lead of our top scientists both in creativity, rigor, and social media politeness.     

Training matters! Narrative from a Black scientist

As STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) professionals, we are tasked with increasing our understanding of the universe and generating discoveries that advance our society. An essential aspect is the training of the next generation of scientists, including concerted efforts to increase diversity within the scientific field. Despite these efforts, there remains disproportional underrepresentation of Black scientists in STEM. Further, efforts to recruit and hire Black faculty and researchers have been largely unsuccessful, in part due to a lack of minority candidates. Several factors contribute to this including access to opportunities, negative training experiences, lack of effective mentoring, and other more lucrative career options. This is a narrative of a Black male scientist to illustrate some of the issues in retaining Black students in STEM and to highlight the impact of toxic training environments that exists at many institutions. To increase Black participation in STEM careers, we must first acknowledge, then address, the problems that exist within our STEM training environments in hopes to inspire and retain Black students at every level of training.

I write this today as the curtain of systemic racism and oppression has lifted on our nation. I write this today knowing that difficult conversations about race are happening all across America. As a result of tremendous sacrifices and lives lost, there have been demonstrations and rallies internationally demanding change, prompting governments, organizations, and companies to issue statements claiming that Black Lives Matter (Asmelash, 2020). While the rage has sparked the demand for equity in our society, what does this mean for science?My heart is heavy with these discussions as I have reflected on my own journey in science and revisit the toxic environment that often makes up our science culture. The journey has been long and brutal. It has taken me from first realizing that I wanted to become a scientist, to having this dream deferred by racism, to adopting a persona of persistence and resilience, and finally becoming a professor and cell biologist. This trek through science is one that is not traversed by many Black people (Graf et al., 2018).When confronted by the pervasiveness of racism in science, I remember surviving the assault by learning about the resilience story of Carl Brashear (Robbins, 2000). In 1970, Master Chief Petty Officer Brashear became the first African American master diver in the Navy, and he showed unwavering strength and persistence in the face of racism. Brashear faced an onslaught of racism during his training that endangered his life countless times, but he persisted and eventually won the admiration of his fellow divers. Upon reflection, his story has many signs of an abusive hazing relationship. However, at the time, I thought emulating his behaviors of persistence was the answer to success in science. I thought, “All you have to do is not give up.” I focused on what I thought I could control and kept the Japanese proverb, “Fall down seven, stand up eight” above my bench. I worked long hours, made many mistakes, but always got right back up to the bench to try again. I never saw myself as the brightest or smartest, but I would tell myself “I will be the one who does not give up.” When I recall these stories and talk to students about my journey, I would always say I wanted to be like the cockroach. Because, as is commonly known, you can never get rid of the cockroach. What I never realized with this persistence or “grit” mentality was that it never addressed the problems of systemic racism within the culture of science (Das, 2020). This message of persistence is akin to blaming the victim and not dealing with the root problems in science, including the lack of mentoring, implicit bias, and hostile teaching and training environments (Barber et al., 2020; Team, 2020).In her book, We Want to Do More Than Survive, Bettina Love talks about the idea of teaching persistence or “grit” to African American students as the educational equivalent to the Hunger Games, a fictional competition where participants battle to the death until there is only one victor (Love, 2019). Instead of addressing institutional barriers to success for African Americans in science (i.e., dismantling the Hunger Games arena), we prepare them to survive in a toxic environment. We tell African American students at a young age that the system is structured against them and that they have to be twice as good and work twice as hard as white students (Thomas and Wetlaufer, 1997; Cavounidis and Lang, 2015; Danielle, 2015). We heap a tremendous amount of pressure and responsibility on their shoulders without ever addressing the question, why is it like this? We are in effect training them for the Hunger Games. As they enter college as science majors, they are pitted against each other, and the few victors move into science careers.This Hunger Games analogy (Love, 2019) is reflective of my thinking early on in my science career. As a freshman marine biology major, I imagined myself, like Brashear, a soldier during basic training. I was a member of the “people of color” (POC) squad that was given the least amount of resources and the most dangerous duties. As part of the POC squad, we moved forward through our college years. I saw many fellow soldiers drop from science, and there were only a handful of us left when I reached my junior year (Koenig, 2009).Recently, Michael Eisen, Editor-in-Chief of eLife, authored an opinion article entitled “Racism in Science: We need to act now” (Eisen, 2020). In this article, he reflected on the current racial climate in science and examined his role as both a principle investigator (PI) of a research laboratory and an editor of a prestigious journal. Of note, he highlighted the dire lack of African Americans he had worked with over his career, including the number of researchers he trained in his laboratory, senior editors, and even reviewers for the articles sent for publication to eLife. I appreciated his honesty in shedding light on the issue that so many people whisper about in department hallways or during coffee breaks at national conferences. Based on my journey, I truly understand this lack of diversity, as so few of us are victors in the scientific Hunger Games.As we struggle as a nation with the role of policing within our society, I find similarities between aggressive policing in the Black community and training of Black and Brown students (North, 2020). There are strong implicit biases that we hold within our training environment, and Black students usually find themselves very quickly judged (or prejudged) for a perceived lack of commitment, motivation, or focus (Park et al., 2020). They are also stereotyped as lacking in quantitative abilities (especially the ability to do math) (McClain, 2014). Taken together, these biased judgements result in a lack of trust regarding their data (Steele, 1997). In other words, research supervisors may implicitly expect Black students to be untrustworthy. This is extremely problematic because educational research shows that one of the greatest determinants of students’ success is their teachers’ expectations (Boser et al., 2014). Consequently, it is predictable that if research supervisors expect Black students to be untrustworthy, they will fail.As PIs, we must trust our research students because they are extensions of ourselves in the laboratory. Due to our inability to spend significant amounts of time at the bench, we must trust our students to figure it out and get the work done. Inevitably, experimental approaches will fail; however, based on my experiences in science, Black students are often not given the benefit of the doubt. Instead, I have seen mis/distrust of their commitment, values, and abilities that creates the narrative that they are not motivated, do not care about science, and/or are unable to get the work done, resulting in a broken trainer/trainee relationship. I have witnessed too many Black students fall victim to a “one strike” policy. This was true of me in my early training in marine biology, where I was asked to leave after only 6 months of working in a laboratory. The professor suggested that I had a lack of commitment to my project and was told by other lab members that they collected “my” data, thus providing justification to ask me not to continue. However, what the professor did not know (or care to ask about) was that the other lab members deemed me as someone who did not belong. Consequently, without my knowledge, they collected data on my project and sent it to the PI, thereby working to reinforce the narrative of my lack of commitment. This experience significantly hindered my access to research opportunities and blacklisted me from any other marine biology labs at my university because I was labeled as uncommitted to science. This ended my career in marine biology. I lost the Hunger Games.As a graduate student, I found another opportunity in a cell biology laboratory, and I tried to apply lessons learned from my earlier participation in the Games. I overcommitted to lab work, blocking out any activities related to my culture or personal life. Instead, I dedicated myself completely to the lab. Working 12-h days, I found that my research was progressing, but I was burning out and losing any desire toward a research career. In particular, my burnout was connected to the perception that any interest in my culture and community would not be allowed or accepted or would signal a lack of adequate commitment to science. In effect, I was learning that being a scientist meant that I could not be Black. This, coupled with the constant microaggressions that I faced from professors in classes, among my graduate cohort, and my laboratory colleagues, broadcasted the message that I was an intruder in science. Luckily, I received good mentoring and advice on how to succeed in my graduate program, learning that it was not a sprint, but a marathon. I learned how to balance my personal and professional life, and I always kept them separate. Additionally, the mental image of the resilient cockroach helped me repeatedly during my graduate training, from failing my qualifying exams and failed experiments at the bench to rejections of papers and fellowship applications. While all scientists know that being a scientist means accepting significant amounts of failure, I could not help but feel that the failures I experienced were more frequent, more recognized by others, and even expected by some. This culture of expected failure for people of color (i.e., presumed incompetence), combined with implicit biases and microaggressions, can establish significant barriers for entering and staying in STEM training environments (Smith et al., 2007).To overcome barriers to success in STEM, I worked hard to become a professor in cell biology. I believed that as a professor, I could make a difference, change the environment, and contribute to the change that is so desperately needed. However, I have discovered that the current science culture is just as toxic as when I was a student. Yes, there are programs targeting the inclusion of historically underrepresented groups. There are also a growing number of institutions that are adopting inclusive teaching strategies. Further, we are seeing hiring committees require diversity statements from their applicants as well as receiving implicit bias trainings (Wood, 2019). However, there remains nearly a complete lack of Black faculty members at universities and colleges (Jayakumar et al., 2009; Garrison, 2013; Li and Koedel, 2017). This is, in part, because we have not changed the systemic racism that exists within our training environments. In fact, this racism comes from our noninclusive faculty bodies (Hardy, 2020). In essence, we have nearly a complete absence of Black faculty in STEM because so few Black trainees survive the Hunger Games. More troubling, if they survive, they may be found otherwise unacceptable.Changing the system starts with the belief that Black students can be scientists, followed by acting to proactively encourage and support Black students in STEM. As Eisen states, “This is a solvable problem, we have chosen not to solve it” (Eisen, 2020). Recruiting Black students and scientists at every level is a good start, but without changing the scientific environment to be more welcoming and affirming, those recruited to science will continue to be traumatized. In other words, while increasing access to science is required, it is not sufficient. The dominant majority in science also needs to identify and address their own biases to create antiracist environments. This will only happen when scientists from all groups recognize our convergent interests to advance our universal missions, which is to increase our understanding of the world around us and to solve research questions that will benefit our communities. This is best achieved by a diverse and inclusive scientific workforce for greater knowledge, discovery, and innovation.     

Hongyuan Yang: Tracking lipids,one droplet at a time

Hongyuan Yang investigates lipid trafficking and lipid droplet biogenesis.

Hongyuan Yang grew up in a small city east of Beijing, China. From his childhood, Hongyuan recalls that “food was not abundant, so I was hungry at times, but education was free and good.” Driven by his curiosity for science, after completing his undergraduate studies at Peking University Health Science Center, China, he enrolled at Columbia University, NY, for his doctoral training. Under the guidance of his advisor, Dr. Stephen Sturley, Hongyuan studied lipids in budding yeast. The laboratory’s research department fostered a strong interest in lipids and atherosclerosis, and after earning his PhD, Hongyuan obtained a faculty position at the National University of Singapore (NUS) in 1999. In 2007, he moved to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia, to continue his scientific journey exploring lipids. We contacted Hongyuan to learn more about his career and interests.Hongyuan Robert Yang. Photo courtesy of UNSW.What interested you about lipids?My five-year doctoral study focused entirely on the enzymes Sterol O-Acyltransferases (SOAT, also known as ACAT, Acyl-CoA Cholesterol Acyltransferases), which catalyze the formation of sterol esters from sterols/cholesterol and fatty acyl CoAs (1). SOATs, integral membrane proteins of the ER, are potential therapeutic targets for heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Since then, I have been fascinated by two things related to SOAT: first, what happens upstream of SOAT, i.e., how exogenous cholesterol reaches SOAT/ER; and second, what happens downstream of SOAT, i.e., how its product—cholesterol esters—is stored in cells in the form of lipid droplets (LDs).These are fundamental questions in cell biology. While reading on how cholesterol arrives at the ER for esterification by SOAT/ACAT in the late 1990s, I realized that the trafficking of most lipids was poorly characterized with little molecular insight. Significant progress has been made in the last 20 years, but the lack of tools that track the movement of lipids has hampered our understanding of the selectivity, efficacy, and kinetics of lipid trafficking. Few cell biologists cared about LDs ∼20 years ago, even though LDs are prominent cellular structures in many disease conditions. Each LD comprises a hydrophobic core of storage lipids (triglycerides and sterol esters) wrapped by a monolayer of phospholipids. Largely considered inert lipid granules, LDs originate from the ER and are relatively simple cellular structures as compared with other organelles (see image). Now, we know that LDs are not that simple: their biogenesis is tightly regulated, they actively interact with other organelles, and they regulate many aspects of cellular function as well as disease progression. Astonishingly, we still have little understanding of how LDs originate from the ER. I am very much intrigued by the complexity of these two seemingly simple cellular processes, i.e., lipid trafficking and LD biogenesis.What are some of the scientific questions currently of interest in your laboratory?We are currently focusing on how LDs originate from the ER. The first significant paper from my own laboratory was the discovery of seipin as a key regulator of LD formation (2). Results from many groups have demonstrated that seipin can organize the formation of LDs; however, the exact molecular function of seipin remains mysterious. Our data suggest that seipin may directly impact the level and/or distribution of lipids such as phosphatidic acid near sites of LD biogenesis, and the effect of seipin deficiency on LD formation is secondary to changes in local lipids. We are now working hard to test this hypothesis. Moreover, data from my laboratory and others indicated that nonbilayer lipids may have a greater impact on the biogenesis of LDs than that of other ER-derived structures, such as COPII vesicles. This may result from the monolayer nature of the LD surface. We hope to dissect the dynamic changes of lipids at ER domains where LDs are born. More broadly, the ER is a fascinating organelle to me. The simple division of ER into sheets and tubules does not reflect the dynamic nature of this organelle. Dissecting the composition and organization of lipids and proteins of the ER would help answer key questions relating to LD biogenesis, and it is therefore one of our future directions.Another major focus is to understand how cholesterol and phosphatidylserine are moved between organelles. We have been working on how low-density lipoprotein (LDL)–derived cholesterol (LDL-C) reaches the ER for two decades. The release of LDL-C from lysosomes requires the Niemann Pick C1&2 proteins, whose malfunction causes lysosomal cholesterol accumulation and a lethal genetic disorder affecting young children. The Ara Parseghian Medical Research Foundation has led the way in supporting research into cholesterol trafficking, and I take this opportunity to thank their generous support. Once released from lysosomes, LDL-C is believed to reach the plasma membrane first and then the ER. We identified ORP2 as a possible carrier of LDL-C to the plasma membrane using a PI(4,5)P₂ gradient (3). There must be other carriers and/or pathways because ORP2 deficiency only causes a minor accumulation of cholesterol in lysosomes. Another interesting question is what prevents LDL-C from reaching the ER directly from lysosomes, given the close contact between lysosomes and the ER. We reported that ORP5 may bring LDL-C directly to the ER (4). However, it was later found that ORP5 binds and transfers phosphatidylserine, not cholesterol. Thus, our observed link between ORP5 and cholesterol is through some indirect yet unknown mechanism. We have been perplexed by these observations for many years, but a recent study demonstrated that phosphatidylserine is required for the trafficking of LDL-C, establishing a close link between cholesterol and phosphatidylserine (5). We are now trying to understand how the trafficking and distribution of cholesterol, phosphatidylserine, and PI(4,5)P₂ are interconnected. For a long time, I felt that it was impossible to figure out the molecular details governing the cellular trafficking of lipids due to redundant pathways and a lack of tools to track lipids. Recent progress in this field has given me hope.Lipid droplets in a HeLa cell are shown in red (BODIPY), with their surface in green. DAPI (blue) labels DNA. Image courtesy of Hongyuan Yang.What kind of approach do you bring to your work?Besides honesty and open-mindedness, we emphasize rigor and comprehensiveness. We often make our initial discoveries in cell-based screens. This approach has many advantages, but it also gives rise to artifacts and cell-line specific observations. We aim to complement our initial findings with biochemical and structural analyses in vitro as well as animal studies in vivo. To further establish the reproducibility of our data, I often ask my close friends and collaborators to independently repeat the key findings of a study before submission. It generally takes a long time for us to complete a study, but I believe the effort will pay off in the long run.What did you learn during your training that helped prepare you for being a group leader? What were you unprepared for?During my PhD at Columbia, I was most impressed with the general attitude of my mentors toward research. No matter how much they have achieved, they take every new experiment and every poster presentation seriously.As I did not have postdoctoral training, I was somewhat unprepared at the beginning of my independent career. One difficult challenge was knowing when to finish a paper and project. We often kept working and working. I have now gotten a lot better.You’ve done research on three continents throughout your career. Can you tell us about some of these transitions?During the last year of my doctoral studies at Columbia, I was offered a lecturer position by the Department of Biochemistry at NUS. It was a very hard decision to leave the United States, but I was excited by the prospect of starting my own laboratory at a top institution. Life at NUS was very good overall, despite some struggles. I had to make ∼700 slides for teaching during the first year and my start-up fund was 10,000 Singapore dollars (~6,000 USD). But the graduate students were fully supported by the university, and most of them are hard working and talented. The crucial screen that led to the discovery of seipin as a key regulator of LD formation was performed at NUS (2). I enjoyed my time at NUS, where I was promoted and tenured. However, my family and I could not get used to the heat and humidity. We looked for a place with better climate, and it happened that my current employer, UNSW, had an opening in 2006. Moving continents with two kids was very disruptive, and I had zero publications in 2007. Our work on seipin was delayed and almost got scooped. I was also very worried about funding in Australia since I hardly knew anyone and the funding system. It turned out that the Australian community was very supportive of our research from day one. I have also been very fortunate to receive generous support from the Ara Parseghian Medical Research Foundation, based in the United States, after my move to Sydney.Hongyuan’s “metabolism team” after a basketball game. Photo courtesy of Hongyuan Yang.What has been the biggest accomplishment in your career so far?While I am mostly recognized for discovering seipin’s role in lipid droplet formation, I am prouder of the work we have done on lipid trafficking and the oxysterol binding proteins. We struggled mightily for the first 15 years. At one point in 2015, I seriously considered abandoning this line of research. But we persisted and discovered their roles in regulating plasma membrane PI(4,5)P₂ and cholesterol, as well as in lipid droplet formation (3, 6).What has been the biggest challenge in your career so far?The biggest challenge has to do with the subject of my research topic: the fundamental cell biology of lipids. The sorting, distribution, and storage of cellular lipids are clearly very important topics in biology, but they are sometimes too fundamental to explain to funding agencies and new students. These days, lipid research is not as “sexy” as other topics. But there are so many unanswered questions in lipidology. I strongly believe that lipid research is going to be the next “big thing” as new techniques such as cryoEM now allow us to appreciate lipids and membrane proteins with unprecedented clarity.Who were your key influences early in your career?Besides mentors and teachers at Columbia, I really enjoyed reading and studying the works by Drs. Mike Brown and Joseph Goldstein, Ta-Yuan Chang, and Scott Emr. While they were not my teachers, their work inspired and impacted many young scientists, including me.What is the best advice you have been given?I have been given many pieces of great advice during my career. The best one in my view is “Less is more.” I was once told, “You would be better off with a lab of six than twelve.” Initially, I did not get it because I thought that a bigger group would allow me to explore more directions and be more productive. The reality is that, as a little-known junior researcher, few experienced people would join my laboratory. Funding is also a major limiting factor. Supervising a large number of students is fulfilling, but it also takes away some of my own time to think critically about the projects. I have largely kept my group under six, and this allows me to better supervise and guide the trainees. People say, “Once your team has more than 15 members, you become a manager instead of a scientist.” My own experience corroborates that statement because I struggled quite a bit when my group reached 12 at one point.What hobbies do you have?I am heavily into sports, especially basketball and tennis. I follow the NBA closely, and Jeremy Lin is my hero. I still play basketball at least twice a week. I am the captain of a basketball team comprised of scientists working on metabolism (see image). We play real, refereed basketball games against local teams during conferences. As I am getting older, I have also picked up tennis. I watch coaching videos on YouTube but still need a lot of work on my forehand. Through sports, I learned teamwork and the spirit of fighting to the last second. If I were not a scientist, I would probably run a sports-related business.What has been your biggest accomplishment outside of the laboratory?I got married and had children relatively early. Both of my kids are now in college and they appear to be decent human beings. I have been extremely lucky because my wife did most of the heavy lifting in looking after the kids. It was still a struggle for me to balance work and parental duties during the early days of my independent career. I am very proud and happy with where we are as a family right now.Any tips for a successful research career?Everyone is unique. Knowing your strengths and especially your weaknesses can be crucial to your success. My undergraduate training was in medicine and health management, and my PhD work focused on genetics and cell biology, so my understanding of physical chemistry is rather inadequate. I am also very bad at developing new methods. To alleviate these deficiencies, I constantly monitor new methods in my field and I purposefully look for collaborators with strong chemistry backgrounds. I have benefited immensely from such efforts.     

Work life balance?

There is no perfect recipe to balance work and life in academic research. Everyone has to find their own optimal balance to derive fulfilment from life and work. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training

A few years ago, a colleague came into my office, looking a little irate, and said, “I just interviewed a prospective student, and the first question was, ‘how is work‐life balance here?’”. Said colleague then explained how this question was one of his triggers. Actually, this sentiment isn''t unusual among many PIs. And, yet, asking about one''s expected workload is a fair question. While some applicants are actually coached to ask it at interviews, I think that many younger scientists have genuine concerns about whether or not they will have enough time away from the bench in order to have a life outside of work.In a nutshell, I believe there is no one‐size‐fits‐all definition of work–life balance (WLB). I also think WLB takes different forms depending on one''s career stage. As a new graduate student, I didn''t exactly burn the midnight oil; it took me a couple of years to get my bench groove on, but once I did, I worked a lot and hard. I also worked on weekends and holidays, because I wanted answers to the questions I had, whether it was the outcome of a bacterial transformation or the result from a big animal experiment. As a post‐doc, I worked similarly hard although I may have actually spent fewer hours at the bench because I just got more efficient and because I read a lot at home and on the six train. But I also knew that I had to do as much as I could to get a job in NYC where my husband was already a faculty member. The pressure was high, and the stress was intense. If you ask people who knew me at the time, they can confirm I was also about 30 pounds lighter than I am now (for what it''s worth, I was far from emaciated!).As an assistant professor, I still worked a lot at the bench in addition to training students and writing grant applications (it took me three‐plus years and many tears to get my first grant). As science started to progress, work got even busier, but in a good way. By no means did I necessarily work harder than those around me—in fact, I know I could have worked even more. And I’m not going to lie, there can be a lot of guilt associated with not working as much as your neighbor.My example is only one of millions, and there is no general manual on how to handle WLB. Everyone has their own optimal balance they have to figure out. People with children or other dependents are particularly challenged; as someone without kids, I cannot even fathom how tough it must be. Even with some institutions providing child care or for those lucky enough to have family take care of children, juggling home life with “lab life” can create exceptional levels of stress. What I have observed over the years is that trainees and colleagues with children become ridiculously efficient; they are truly remarkable. One of my most accomplished trainees had two children, while she was a post‐doc and she is a force to be reckoned with—although no longer in my laboratory, she still is a tour de force at work, no less with child number three just delivered! I think recruiters should view candidates with families as well—if not better—equipped to multi‐task and get the job done.There are so many paths one can take in life, and there is no single, “correct” choice. If I had to define WLB, I would say it is whatever one needs to do in order to get the work done to one''s satisfaction. For some people, putting in long days and nights might be what is needed. Does someone who puts in more hours necessarily do better than one who doesn''t, or does a childless scientist produce more results than one with kids? Absolutely not. People also have different goals in life: Some are literally “wedded” to their work, while others put much more emphasis on spending time with their families and see their children grow up. Importantly, these goals are not set in stone and can fluctuate throughout one''s life. Someone recently said to me that there can be periods of intense vertical growth where “balance” is not called for, and other times in life where it is important and needed. I believe this sentiment eloquently sums up most of our lives.Now that I''m a graying, privileged professor, I have started to prioritize other areas of life, in particular, my health. I go running regularly (well, maybe jog very slowly), which takes a lot of time but it is important for me to stay healthy. Pre‐pandemic, I made plans to visit more people in person as life is too short not to see family and friends. In many ways, having acquired the skills to work more efficiently after many years in the laboratory and office, along with giving myself more time for my health, has freed up my mind to think of science differently, perhaps more creatively. It seems no matter how much I think I’m tipping the balance toward life, work still creeps in, and that’s perfectly OK. At the end of the day, my work is my life, gladly, so I no longer worry about how much I work, nor do I worry about how much time I spend away from it. If you, too, accomplish your goals and derive fulfillment from your work and your life, neither should you.     

A 20-year encounter with the imposter syndrome

Both in their formative years and later careers, some scientists suffer from something more than occasional self-doubts. There is a more severe affliction that strikes many more than was once realized. Here I reflect on my encounter, in the hope that sharing it can be of some value.

A landmark study 42 years ago presented the results of a survey of 150 highly successful women professionals as regards their self-assessment of confidence. The results were stunning. Many subjects gave responses revealing moderate to intense emotional stress and anxiety as to their qualifications. To characterize this revealed broad experience, the authors coined the term “the imposter syndrome” (Clance and Imes, 1978). It was apt indeed, the first word conveying the haunting sense of being an intruder in the guild, unqualified, and in the game only by some fluke; the second term meaning that the condition was encountered as a constellation of effects, from heart to mind to gut, with fear the signal transduction onto all those centers. This study was a turning point, inter alia, in the broadening field of scholarship examining the barriers to women in the workplace.At the time of the Clance and Imes publication it was not known if this same affliction occurs in men and, if so, with what prevalence, or whether it occurs in some professions more than others. In at least the sciences, it now appears that both females and males encounter it, both as students and as young trainees, although the prevalence is less well known for males. I have no expertise in this field beyond my one experience, which I share here in the hope that it may have some nugget of value for all those who doubt their talent.Science was not my first love academically. I had no butterfly collection, nor did I conduct explosion-seeking chemistry experiments in the cellar. My favorite subject in high school was Latin, my least favorite was biology. I remember a lecture on vitamins in the latter course, where we had to memorize what happens when each one is missing or limiting in the diet. We asked the teacher for an explanation for pellagra, scurvy, and so forth (meaning: what do these vitamins do?). He replied, “They are essential.” QED. (But in fairness, this teacher could be better sometimes—for example, he told us why the mouthwash “Listerine” was so named.)After studying English and Latin in college, I came to biology for a second try and it felt better. I applied to medical school but declined my acceptances and went for a Ph.D. During this time, I do not recall feeling particularly anxious about my abilities, although I had not yet really done anything to reveal their presence or absence. I do recall a few times when I was nervous, but that is not uncommon for graduate students. But one day, I got the first sensation of perhaps something more. It was my Ph.D. qualifying exam in the Department of Zoology at Syracuse University, in 1961. One part was a four-hour written exam in one’s field, the other was a free-for-all with the whole faculty asking about anything under the sun in biology. At one point I was asked to derive the Nernst equation (describing a cell’s membrane resting potential). I replied “OK, but from what?” The faculty member thought I was being evasive, but I was just looking for a little guidance (as when the Scripps–Howard Spelling Bee contestant asks the moderator: “Can you please use that in a sentence?”) I knew one cannot get the Nernst equation from f = ma, there is an electrical component (duly named for Michael Faraday). I managed to get through this question and all the others, but it was then I began to wonder if I was playing some charade. Maybe I had been clever but not really grounded. That I had gotten through the oral exam didn’t quiet my sense that I might have “pulled something off” and maybe hadn’t deserved to have passed. That was the moment when a visitor first arrived in my consciousness. It whispered, “You know, Thoru, it’s just possible that you might be a phony.”During my postdoc this nagging feeling got stronger. I had moved from a very good zoology program at Syracuse to an elite department of cell biology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. My work was going well, but all the people around me seemed so much smarter and their research seemed more significant. On one side of the lab I was in, Phillip Coffino, an M.D./Ph.D. student, was measuring the somatic mutation rate of immunoglobulin genes with Matthew Scharff, and on the other side, Ellie Ehrenfeld was isolating the poliovirus RNA replicase in the laboratory of Donald Summers. These were pioneering projects and I was in awe of both them and their science. By the time I left Einstein my case of the imposter syndrome had reached the point where I felt lucky to get an independent position.Today, I reflect on all this. First, and as conveyed in the original study, was the certitude in my assessment of myself. At the time this affliction had me in its maw, no one could have convinced me otherwise. As other victims of this condition have attested, the sense that it is totally true is overwhelming. The second feature of the imposter syndrome, as was also revealed in the study, was that the day was just around the corner when I would be found out. This evokes a pattern of paranoia where, on each and every day, one is just waiting for “the truth” to come out.But then, when I was 40, I got over this thing. It was quite sudden. I was on my way to Caltech to give a seminar and looked out the window over Kansas at the puffed popcorn of white clouds and got a simple idea, a question that should always be asked by any scientist. What if I were wrong? What if I were misinterpreting the data? For the first time, looking out that airplane window, it came to me that the obsession that I was totally incompetent was not supported by the facts, and that a hypothesis that I was at least competent in a “guild-average” sense seemed to be at hand.How the imposter syndrome affects females vs. males is still being studied. I do think that when it hits males, we compensate in ways that are different from females. One of the most compelling books in this field describes an intrepid group of women who provided powerful anchors for each other (Daniell, 2008). They were not all suffering from the imposter syndrome, but rather receiving the totality of slings and arrows that professional women face on many fronts. This landscape of inquiry and scholarship is worthy of further investigation as we seek to understand the degrees to which gender differentially influences the aspirations of all those coming up, and to which the imposter syndrome is an infection that may have no host restriction as to gender or ethnicity. The key question now, more than four decades after the landmark study, is whether the imposter syndrome has afflicted all genders and ethnicities to similar or differing degrees, and not only in America and not just in the sciences. This is the total perspective in which this career-inhibitory/destructive phenomenon must be understood, to elevate our ability to mentor, and if possible “vaccinate,” all students and emerging young professionals who suffer from it. Only when we all understand the roots of the phenomenon’s existence in the first place can we do our best to stamp it out.     

A year since George Floyd

The murder of George Floyd sparked an awakening, long overdue, which reverberated throughout society. As science begins to acknowledge its role in perpetuating systematic racism, the voices of Black scientists, which have largely been absent, are now being called on. As we rightly begin to make space for diverse voices and perspectives in science, we all must think about what it is we are asking minoritized individuals to do.

It has been roughly 1 year since the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, who was killed over an alleged counterfeit 20 dollar bill in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Hill et al. 2020; Kaul, 2020; Levenson, 2021). In many ways, his murder was no different than the murders of thousands of other murders of Black people in this country (Thompson, 2020; Lett et al., 2021; Tate et al., 2021). However, what distinguishes George Floyd’s murder from many other high profile cases is that it was unambiguously captured on video (Alexander, 1994), an act of bravery by Darnella Frazier, a 17-year-old Black woman (Izadi, 2021), at a time when the world was mostly housebound by a raging global pandemic. As a result, his murder reverberated through society in a way that has not happened in my lifetime. While there have been other high profile cases of murders carried out by police (Treyvon Martin, Walter Scott, Breonna Taylor, and Philando Castile, among many others), these cases failed to fully sustain the attention of a national and international audience (Chan et al., 2020; Chughtai, 2021). The murder of George Floyd was fundamentally different, and for once, more than just Black people were paying attention. His murder sparked protests across the nation led by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement (Day, 2015; Taylor, 2016; Banks, 2018; Taylor, 2021), and the demands for change were so loud people could not help but hear.As a Black, gay man who is also a scientist, I was thrown into despair. All of my life I have thought if I just worked hard enough, if I am kind and unthreatening, if I play the game and keep my head down, maybe I can make it in academia. Maybe then I will be seen and accepted, not just by society, but by the scientific community. George Floyd’s murder reminded me, and many of my Black colleagues, that our degrees can’t protect us, that our privileged middle-class upbringing (if we had one) was not a shield. Our lives were not worth more than a counterfeit 20 dollar bill.Science, which has always been a product of society, was not impervious to these reverberations. By late June my inbox began to slowly fill with invitations to speak at several institutions for their seminar series, retreats, or special symposia. It felt as if the scientific community, for the first time, realized that there were Black scientists among them. In the throes of my own despair, and the feeling that I needed to be doing something for my community, I began to say “yes.” I was not going to participate in the nightly protests that occurred in my newly adopted hometown of Portland, Oregon. Aside from fearing I could be next to lose my life at the hands of the police (Edwards et al., 2019), these protests were happening in the backdrop of a global pandemic. I came to the conclusion that by accepting these invitations to speak, this could be my activism, my way of sparking change, increasing visibility, and being seen not only for my own sake but also for other Black scientists.Before I write anything else, I want to be clear: I am extremely thankful to all the institutions and organizations that invited me and gave me a platform. I am extremely proud of my students’ work and of the research we produce. I am sharing my experiences with the hope that they can be instructive to the greater scientific community, but if I am being frank, there is a bit of anger.I received over 15 invitations and gave an additional three or four interviews over the course of the year. Most of these came with the expectation that I would also talk about my work in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. But here’s the lowdown: prior to this year, I did not view myself as someone who did Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work. I am co-chair of the LGBTQ+ committee of the American Society of Cell Biology and a member of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee of the Genetics Society of America. I volunteer for both of these committees because they speak to something I care deeply about, the advocacy for minoritized ¹ scientists. I also embody both of these axes of diversity; so, in some way, I am only looking out for myself. This is far from being a scholar or doing “Diversity work.” I fully recognize that there are individuals who have dedicated their lives to this type of work with entire academic fields populated with accomplished scholars. So, I started this year of talks being invited because I am a Black, gay scientist at a time when science was grappling with its own systematic racism, under the guise of my nonexistent Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work.What has this year actually taught me? The first thing it taught me is that I have been missing out. Prior to George Floyd’s murder, I had only received three seminar invitations from major research institutions and unfortunately all within a year of being posttenure. That is after nearly 6 years in my current position.In giving these talks I got the opportunity to meet with some of the giants in my field, people I have looked up to for years. I received reagents, offers to collaborate, and a litany of great ideas that will help drive my research program for years to come. I left some of these meetings truly inspired and excited to start experiments. These opportunities would have been invaluable to me, pretenure. One could argue, I did not need it. I made it even without this networking and the advantages these visits bring. Before you applaud my ability to persist and be resilient, we should take a deep look at the systems that have forced people who look like me to be doubly resilient. If George Floyd had not been murdered, would any of these invitations have happened? If the previous 6 years are any indication of a trend, I would have to say most certainly not. Why did it take a murder and the reignition of a Civil Rights movement for me to have the type of interactions I now know many of my straight, white counterparts have had from the very beginning of their independent careers? Let me be clear: this is a form of systematic racism, plain and simple.As I began to make the rounds, I was often asked to either share a bit of my journey or include my Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work in my talks. This sometimes came at the expense of sharing my lab’s work. While I was very happy to do so, this was very much implicit in the invitations I received. At times it did feel that my inclusion was only checking a box, placating the graduate students so that they could see that their department or institution was responding to their demands. This also had the consequence of making me feel as though my science was merely performative. I was being invited to do the Diversity work institutions did not want to do. This is the tension I, and many other minoritized scientists, face. I want to share my experiences with the hopes that the next generation will have it better; but, my scholarly work is not in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. I fully recognize that it is my embodied diversity that is bringing me to the table; but, it is the science I want to share.On the first invitation to give a seminar, I promised myself that I was going to be honest. This meant that I would tell the truth about my experience and bare my soul over and over again. What I had not counted on was the emotional toll this would take on me. Reliving my own trauma, on a regular basis, left me emotionally drained after these visits. In one of my “stops” (I use quotes here because these “visits” were all virtual), I met with the queer, person of color (POC), graduate students. This session quickly turned into an emotional support group where I heard stories of mistreatment, racism, and discrimination. It was nearly impossible to maintain my composure. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work is clearly extremely important, but, maybe, we could just start by listening to the needs of the students and having a bit of humanity.The trial of Derek Chauvin has come and passed, and much to my surprise, and to the surprise of many other Black people nationwide, he was found guilty and was sentenced to prison (Arango, 2021; Cooper and Fiegel, 2021). This, of course, is not justice, not even close. Justice would mean that George Floyd is still alive and would get to live out his life in the way he chose. We are also at the beginning of the end of the pandemic. In 6 months or less, we may all be returning to life, more or less, as it was before George Floyd, before COVID-19. Does this mean we stop fighting? Does this mean that I, and many other Black scientists, suddenly disappear? For George Floyd, for countless other faceless Black people before him, I sincerely hope not. We need to continue to give Black scientists a platform. We need to ensure that they, too, are given the opportunity to network, collaborate, and interact with the larger scientific community. This means the invitations cannot stop. To further this, we need to ensure that Black scientists are included in every grant review panel, are included on speaker lists at every national and international meeting, are funded, and are in the room where funding, tenure, and other critical decisions are being made. We need to recognize that systematic racism has not gone away with Derek Chauvin’s conviction and sentencing. We need to continue to push forward. And, for all of you young, minoritized scientists (and allies) reading this, demand change and do not take "no" for an answer. I am truly sorry this has fallen on your shoulders, but enough is enough. The next generation of minoritized scientists should be recognized for their science without the additional burden of creating their own space.About the AuthorI am currently an Associate Professor of Biology at Reed College (https://www.reed.edu/biology/applewhite/index.html), which is located in Portland, Oregon. I arrived at Reed in 2014; prior to that, I was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. I received my PhD from Northwestern University in Cellular and Molecular Biology and a BS in Biology from the University of Michigan where I was also a 4-year letter winner in track and field. My research focuses on the cytoskeleton where I study cell motility and morphogenesis using Drosophila and Drosophila derived in tissue culture cells to explore actin, microtubules, and molecular motors. My current lab is composed of fierce, determined undergraduate students. I am a member of the American Society of Cell Biology (ASCB) and the current chair of the LGBTQ+ Committee (https://www.ascb.org/committee/lgbtq/). I am also a member of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee for the Genetics Society of America (https://genetics-gsa.org/committees/). I also serve as an editor for MBoC’s Voices series.     

University campuses need people in them

As COVID‐19 has turned universities into ghost towns, David Smith cannot wait for the day when his campus fills with life again.

In the novel Fool’s Fate, Robin Hobb writes: “Home is people. Not a place. If you go back there after the people are gone, then all you can see is what is not there anymore.” I feel the same about university campuses.In late August 2020, after months of working from home, I returned to the campus of Western University where I am an associate professor of biology. It was supposed to be a short visit, in and out to grab some notebooks and an external monitor. But when I unlocked the office door and sat in that old wooden desk chair amongst the calm clutter of my workspace, I did not get up for a good two hours. I was comforted by the familiarity of my bookshelves, photographs, and professorial memorabilia, including a large bust of Darwin and a giant whale’s tooth. How I missed this place. And apart from two dead plants and a generous layer of dust, everything was as it should be.Outside my office was a different story. The water fountains were covered up with caution tape. Bright purple floor markings indicated the correct side of the hallway to walk down. Main offices, libraries, and canteens were closed. Large signs on all major doorways reiterated the social distancing policies. And apart from the odd security officer or grounds person, the campus was eerily empty. Nevertheless, I decided that for as long as the university remained open, I would keep coming to my office for a few hours a day, mainly to read and write without the cacophonic company of a toddler, but also to bring back some semblance of normalcy to my work life.The plan started off well. Each morning I would pack a large lunch, walk to campus and enjoy a few uninterrupted hours of academic productivity. But the stillness and emptiness of the university began to weigh on me. I could swear the fluorescent lights in my office were buzzing more loudly than before. Was the central air system always this rickety? After an hour of writing, I would take a quick walk around the department to clear my mind and see if anyone else was in. On my fifth day, I finally found someone: Vera’s office door was propped open! I quickly checked that my mask was on correctly and poked my head around. Small talk—glorious small talk—ensued for at least fifteen minutes. I had forgotten how nice it was to chat with a colleague in person. I went back to my office refreshed and put in another hour of good work. The next day, the building was deserted again. Not a sliver of light beneath Vera’s or any other door.I hoped that maybe once classes resumed in mid‐September, some vitality would return to campus. But, of course, nearly all of the classes were online and students and staff stayed home. Sometimes on my departmental wanderings, I would go into one of the large lecture halls and just stand at the podium. Once I even plugged my laptop into the AV system and practiced a presentation that I was preparing for an upcoming Zoom talk. As strange as it sounds, speaking to hundreds of lifeless seats in that old, stuffy hall felt more natural than talking to a grid of black boxes with nametags on my computer screen.As the weeks wore on and my visits to campus continued, a deep melancholy slowly took hold of me. I would spend hours on seemingly simple tasks, like tidying my office or answering emails. Harder tasks, such as writing a paper or developing a new lecture, felt insurmountable. I started leaving everything to the last minute or missing deadlines completely, which is unlike me. It felt as if my mood was somehow mirroring that of the vacant classrooms and buildings surrounding me. They, too, were paying the price of the pandemic.I have spent most of my life on college campuses. My father was a chemistry professor and often took me to work with him when I was a small child. My first daycare was at a university. As an adolescent and teenager, I would go to the local college most days for after‐school clubs. I learnt to swim at a university pool, became a senior boys 1500 m running champion on a university track, and discovered my love of mountain biking and cross‐country skiing on university trails. I met my closest friends in university residences. And my passion for science and writing was fostered in university classrooms. I love universities. I love what they represent: places of learning, scholarship, and development. I love the palpable emotions that they emit, from the endless possibilities of the first week of classes to the anxieties and sense of completion during final examinations. Most of all, I love the people that make up universities, their eclectic mix of personalities, backgrounds, ages, and beliefs. This might sound strange, but when I go on vacation, I visit universities elsewhere. I will spend an entire afternoon roaming around a campus, reading in the library, or sitting on a bench watching people come and go. This may be why I am so sad that my current institute sits unoccupied, at least in the physical sense. Ironically, enrollment is up. My department has more new undergraduate students than it has had in years.The other day on my walk home from work I ran into a colleague. He described to me how he has been working hard to get the upcoming introductory genetics course online, especially given the increase in students (there are more than 1200 currently enrolled in the course). I said, “You must be looking forward to the end of this crisis when we can start teaching in‐person again.” His response has had a lasting effect on me. “I’m not so sure things will go back to the way they were,” he said. “A lot of students are enjoying online learning—or are at least finding it convenient and cost‐effective. Many are saving money by living at home and by not having to bus into campus every day and buy overpriced food. They like being able to watch the recorded lectures on their own schedule and at their own speed. Even after the current crisis ends, I think there be will be a strong push for continued online learning.” “You might be right,” I said, “but I sure hope not.”When we parted ways, I felt even more downtrodden. I reminded myself that I was lucky to have a great job and that I needed to be adaptable. If the future is online learning, so be it. I can become a connoisseur of Camtasia. I can learn to be creative and engaging over Zoom. I can master those microphone and camera settings. But I could not help thinking this is not what I signed up for. When the pandemic is over, I do not want to exist in a cyber campus with online students and online colleagues. I do not want my home to be a lecture hall. I want brick and mortar and real bums in real seats. I want to stand in line for 20 minutes outside the student union building for lukewarm coffee. I want to waste precious time walking to meetings and making small talk in the corridors. I want the thing that I fell in love with. Until COVID‐19 is defeated, we need to stay vigilant. But when the war is won, will university campuses return to being physical gathering points for learning, engagement and community building or virtual concepts in an online learning space? Whatever the answer, I know that if you are looking for Associate Professor David R. Smith, you will find him holding out in the Biological and Geological Sciences Building, room 3028. The hand‐written sign on the door will say, “Going down with the ship.”     

Alcodemia: are we training our students to be great thinkers or great drinkers?

Academia has fostered an unhealthy relationship with alcohol that has an undeniable impact on the health and behaviour of students and staff. Subject Categories: S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, Chemical Biology, S&S: Ethics

University life has a lot to offer. And, for better or worse, much of it goes hand in hand with a bottle. Believe it or not, I was a bit of teetotaler in my undergraduate days but quickly made up for it in graduate school, where each celebration included inebriation. Indeed, my initial tour of the laboratory I eventually worked in included a refreshing visit to the grad club. Orientation week ended with a marathon beer blitz at a nightclub. The semester’s first invited seminar speaker was welcomed with the sounds of loose change, ice buckets and the clickity‐clack of organic microbrews being opened. Our inaugural genome evolution journal club was such a success that we vowed to spill even more red wine onto our notebooks the following week. In hindsight, I should have realized at this early stage in my studies that I was fostering an unhealthy and unsustainable relationship between biology and booze. Unfortunately, my post‐graduate education in alcohol didn’t stop there.Like many keen students, I arrived at my first scientific conference with a belly full of nerves and a fistful of drink tickets, which I quickly put to good use at the poster session. The successful completion of my PhD proposal assessment was met with pats on the back as I was swiftly marched off to a local pub with no chance of escape. My first peer‐reviewed paper literally arrived with a pop as Champagne was generously poured into plastic cups for the entire laboratory group. My failures, too, were greeted with a liberal dose of ethanol. “Sorry you came up short on that scholarship application, Smitty. It’s nothing a little weapons‐grade Chianti won’t cure.” “That experiment failed again! Come on, let me buy you a lunchtime martini to make up for it.” Soon I learnt that every academic event, achievement or ailment, no matter how big or small, could be appropriately paired with beer, wine or spirit. Missing from the menu were two crucial ingredients for any burgeoning researcher: moderation and mindfulness.But it was the older vintages that really inspired me – the legendary drinking escapades of my scientific mentors, advisors and idols. The tale of professor so‐and‐so who at that epic meeting in 1993 polished off an entire magnum of rosé at dinner and then went on to deliver among the greatest keynote lectures on record at 9 am the following morning. That celebrated chaired researcher who kept the single malt next to the pipette tips for quick and easy access. The grizzled evolutionary ecologist who never went into the field without half a dozen cans of high‐end smoked oysters and two hip flaks, which didn’t contain water. And so, when I was told by someone in the know of how the most famous geneticist on campus wrote that monumental Nature paper (the one I’d read ten times!) while locked in his office for twelve hours with a six‐pack, I bought into the romance hook, line and sinker. The result: I’ve been nursing a recurring headache for nearly two decades and I’m still waiting on that Nature paper. Most importantly, I now realize the various dangers of romanticizing the bottle, especially for individuals in mentorship positions.Like my idols before me, I’ve accrued a cask full of well‐oaked academic drinking stories, except that they haven’t aged well. There is that heroic evening of intense scotch‐fueled scientific discussion, which led to me forfeiting two front teeth to the concrete sidewalk (my mother still thinks it was a squash accident). Or that time I commemorated the end of a great conference in Barcelona by throwing up on the front window of a café while the most prominent minds in my field sipped aperitifs inside (thank god this was before Twitter). Even more romantic: me buying a bottle of Cotes de Nuits Burgundy at Calgary airport on route to a job interview, discreetly opening the bottle in‐flight because economy class wine sucks, and then being met by airport security upon landing. Let’s just say I didn’t get the job. To some, these anecdotes might seem light‐hearted or silly, but they are actually rather sad and underscore the seriousness of substance abuse. Many readers will have their own complicated experiences with alcohol in academia and, I believe, will agree that it is high time we asked ourselves: are we training our graduate students to be great thinkers or great drinkers? Moreover, this question does not address the equally if not more serious issue of excessive drinking among undergraduate students.As I sit at my desk writing this, I think to myself: is it normal that within a two‐minute walk of my university office there are three different places on campus that I can have a beer before lunch, not including the minifridge behind my desk? Is it normal that in my department the first thing we do after a student defends their thesis is go to the grad club where they can have any alcoholic drink of their choosing for free from the goblet of knowledge, which is kept on a pedestal behind the bar? Is it normal that before the COVID pandemic when I was visiting a prominent university for an invited talk, one of the professors I met with offered me a glass of expensive Japanese gin at 11 am in the morning? (And, yes, I accepted the drink.)Of course, if you don’t want to drink you can just say no. But we are learning more and more how institutional cultures – “the deeply embedded patterns of organisational behaviour and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs or ideologies that members have about their organisation or its work” (Peterson & Spencer, 1991) – can have powerful effects on behaviour. Excessive alcohol consumption is undeniably an aspect of collegial culture, one that is having major impacts on the health and behaviour of students and staff, and one that I’ve been an active participant in for far too long. I’ll be turning forty in a few months and I have to face the fact that I’ve already drunk enough alcohol for two lifetimes, and not one drop of it has made me a better scientist, teacher or mentor. The question remains: how much more juice can I squeeze into this forty‐year‐old pickled lemon? Well, cheers to that.     

Inclusion: an individual pursuit requiring organization-level investment to sustain it

If this was not happening in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, I imagine that I would be speaking these words instead of writing them on my laptop. Even so, I am so jazzed for this opportunity! No word or phrase describes what I am feeling in this moment in receiving the 2021 American Society for Cell Biology Prize for Excellence in Inclusivity. It is certainly an honor to be recognized in this way. I am grateful to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for awarding me additional resources to keep on keeping on. My approach to finding the connection between people and their science certainly could use the monetary support. Resources open doors. At the same time that I am grateful for the attention, I am not exactly sure what to do with the spotlight. Importantly, there are a host of other folks out there also doing amazing things who have never been recognized. Let’s work to ensure that their contributions are supported, appreciated, and recognized. Instead of focusing the spotlight on me, I would rather redirect it to recognize my foundational influences. I also hope to encourage the need for institutional approaches beyond celebrating individual accomplishment.

O. A. Quintero‐CarmonaJo Rae Wright was my graduate advisor and the model for how I have tried to work with my students and colleagues to support their opportunities while also “doing science.” I wanted to start graduate school as soon as I could after graduating college, so after letting the Cell and Molecular Biology Program at Duke University know that I was accepting their offer, I started thumbing through their program booklet looking for labs with interesting research projects (a web presence wasn’t even really a thing for departments in 1996). I worked alphabetically and contacted a handful of labs one at a time to see whether anyone was willing to take on an early-rotation student. It was an unusual request for the way that the program had operated previously, and Jo Rae was the only person to agree to it. I don’t remember exactly, but she said something like, “We accepted you into the program, so I would be happy to host your first rotation.” The sense that I got was that, within the limits of her time and resources, she was willing to become my mentor because I needed one. She trusted the admissions process, so why not bring an eager student into the lab. I spent the summer settling in to the life of a graduate student—sort of.At first, I was bad at graduate school. I am curious about all sorts of things, which means I am also easily pulled in too many directions. In that first year of school I spent way too much time simply visiting other students in my cohort to see what it was that they were up to each day. I cannot imagine how distracting I must have been to them and probably extremely irritating to their PIs as well. If you were in Cell Biology at Duke in 1996–97, I am sincerely grateful that you tolerated my shenanigans. Where others might have taken me to task, Jo Rae looked for opportunities to redirect my energies more productively. She and another professor, Dan Kiehart, guided me toward participating in the Physiology Course at the Marine Biological Laboratory, where I learned what I needed to do to be a scientist in a way that would not have been possible otherwise. While there, I saw PIs working with students chasing the joy of discovery, and it felt like it was purely for the sake of a deeper understanding of biology and preparing the next generation of scientists to do the same. Resources gave us the liberty to focus on scientific discovery with minimal concern for where would be the highest profile place to publish. Although I acknowledge that the summer course environments may not be the most representative of the daily life of a scientist at a home institution, such an opportunity left a mark—I wanted to come as close as I could to emulating that environment when I got back to Duke and (eventually) when I had the chance to run a research group and teach students.Along the way, Jo Rae made sure to include me and my fellow lab mates in all aspects of the science. At national meetings she included us at every step, introducing us to her contemporaries and putting us in spaces where we would rub elbows with luminaries in the field. When we were in those environments, she made sure that I felt like a junior colleague. I cannot recall ever feeling like a “trainee.” Back home at Duke, I had opportunities to do everything that a scientist might do in addition to “sciencing.” Sure, I would write papers, contribute to grants, and be part of her review of papers. I was also encouraged to mentor undergraduates, teach, advocate for federal funding at the time of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) doubling, and plan events for Duke’s summer undergraduate research program, if I so chose. Similarly, when I expressed an interest in focusing on science with undergraduates, she was 100% on board with finding ways to combine my graduate school commitments with teaching and mentoring opportunities. Importantly, at a time when expressing interest in an “alternative career” was not always supported by faculty mentors, Jo Rae encouraged me to seek out only those potential postdoctoral mentors who would actively support my goals. Not only that, she went out of her way to find out what options I might have, which led to her learning about the NIH-funded Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award postdoctoral programs in their first year of existence.In a sentence, because Jo Rae was 100% invested in including me in science by finding the framework that best suited my interests and potential, I grew into my success. This was a form of success that wasn’t decided by someone else; I had defined it for myself with Jo Rae serving as a true advisor in every sense of the word—she was in it for me. She helped to build the crucial foundations that helped me find the opportunities that matched my goals. As a result of her influence, I have also had the strength to make some critical, nontraditional choices along the way. Her mentorship style was tailored to each individual’s needs. She invested the time to figure out our strengths, and also learned which levers would motivate us to meet our potential. The members of her lab became successes because she helped all of us to both define success and achieve our own version of it. Such a personal approach is extremely powerful. Jo Rae passed away in 2012, and with her passing I lost the most important influence in my professional life. Duke University and the pulmonary physiology community lost an example for inclusive mentorship and a significant amount of capacity for such an approach. Since her passing, multiple awards have been established to honor Jo Rae’s legacy as an outstanding woman in science. I would argue that mentoring of junior colleagues may be a more significant legacy than her scientific output. Jo Rae is deserving of this award.Recognitions such as this one are an important way to amplify examples of what we often say we hope to achieve as a department, an institution, or a scientific society. However, if our focus is solely on the efforts of individuals, we are missing an opportunity. While I am humbled to be considered in the same league as the previous award recipients, we are each in our own way scrambling to do what we can while we can do it. When individuals have some positive outcomes, our institutions and organizations will celebrate what these folks have done as they have played some role in supporting these opportunities. Although what we do is worthwhile, it is really hard to do it successfully and sustainably without proper institutional support. We each face hinderances that can undermine the work that we want to take on. Burnout is a real outcome of doing the work that we care about and that our organizations publicly state is important. This is especially true in environments where that work is undervalued and underresourced. You do not have to do a very extensive internet search to identify where the institutions that have supported my work also have exclusionary legacies and current negative influences that continue to hinder their potential for broader, more meaningful progress. In many instances inclusion has yet to be baked into institutional culture in a way that impacts how organizations operate. Although I have had some institutional support to develop a career modeled on what I experienced under Jo Rae’s mentorship, the students and faculty at these institutions know that what gets headlines can often be an exceptional situation, rather than a typical everyday experience. Rather than showcasing the good work of individuals in their ranks, an organization should devote itself to furthering the idea that it is willing to make significant institutional investments in that good work. By building the internal infrastructure and capacity to support inclusion efforts, organizations would demonstrate that inclusion is an essential component of the institutional standard practice. The positive outcomes that this award is intended to highlight would then be a shared characteristic of the community. A shared vision paired with shared effort and resource-support might cut down on burnout of those currently carrying more than their share of the load.I imagine that the idea for these awards is to celebrate good work while also demonstrating to other individuals what is possible. With that in mind, if institutions worked at using the example of those in the vanguard as a way to build structures that value and support inclusive approaches, they would increase their own ability to serve their constituents. They may also influence other institutions to do the same. My graduate institution benefited from Jo Rae’s work while she was present and was beginning to institutionalize her view of inclusion in the last years of her life. As Dean of the Graduate School, the model for how she ran her lab informed her vision for graduate education campus-wide. She wanted to build a structure that would identify, recruit, and retain talent. She wanted to provide that talent with opportunities to become expert in how they wanted to contribute to the world. By ensuring that they had access to the relevant experiences and skills, she hoped to support them as they set themselves up for success as they defined it.I accept this award in honor of Jo Rae Wright, and on behalf of the students who have trusted me. All I have ever wanted was to be able to recreate for my undergraduates what Jo Rae had done for the people under her wing. I am building a career around that goal as part of a department keenly supportive of these efforts. My hope is that other individuals will develop their own approaches to inclusion because they find themselves in supportive institutional environments. More importantly, I would like to see organizations begin to truly prioritize inclusive approaches through funding and through policy. Institutions could make sufficient resources available to support inclusive efforts and allow creativity in how faculty mobilize those resources. Just as Jo Rae had the flexibility to adjust to our needs, institutional efforts will benefit when limited resource access is not a hindrance to inclusive excellence. Additionally, it will be critical to acknowledge the time and effort that such endeavors require in evaluating faculty contributions. It can no longer be the icing on the cake of a portfolio—developing inclusive capacity has to be recognized as an essential component of our work. Until these changes take root at the institutional level, this kind of work may shine brightly, but will continue to be stochastic and short-lived. All those efforts “will be lost in time, like tears in rain.” It is on all of us to prevent such a tragic ending.     

After 2 years of a pandemic,students are struggling to find strong reference letters

Writing and receiving reference letters in the time of COVID. Subject Categories: Careers

“People influence people. Nothing influences people more than a recommendation from a trusted friend. A trusted referral influences people more than the best broadcast message.” —Mark Zuckerberg.

I regularly teach undergraduate courses in genetics and genomics. Sure enough, at the end of each semester, after the final marks have been submitted, my inbox is bombarded with reference letter requests. “Dear Dr. Smith, I was a student in your Advanced Genetics course this past term and would be forever grateful if you would write me a reference for medical school…” I understand how hard it can be to find references, but I have a general rule that I will only write letters of support for individuals that I have interacted with face‐to‐face on at least a few occasions. This could include, for example, research volunteers in my laboratory, honors thesis students that I have supervised, and students who have gone out of their way to attend office hours and/or been regularly engaged in class discussions. I am selective about who I will write references for, not because I am unkind or lazy, but because I know from experience that a strong letter should include concrete examples of my professional interactions with the individual and should speak to their character and their academic abilities. In today''s highly competitive educational system, a letter that merely states that a student did well on the midterm and final exams will not suffice to get into medical or graduate school.However, over the past 2 years many, if not most, students have been attending university remotely with little opportunity to foster meaningful relationships with their instructors, peers, and mentors, especially for those in programs with large enrollments. Indeed, during the peak of Covid‐19, I stopped taking on undergraduate volunteers and greatly reduced the number of honors students in my laboratory. Similarly, my undergraduate lectures have been predominantly delivered online via Zoom, meaning I did not see or speak with most of the students in my courses. It did not help that nearly all of them kept their cameras and microphones turned off and rarely attended online office hours. Consequently, students are desperately struggling to identify individuals who can write them strong letters of reference. In fact, this past spring, I have had more requests for reference letters than ever before, and the same is true for many of my colleagues. Some of the emails I have received have been heartfelt and underscore how taxing the pandemic has been on young adults. With permission, I have included an excerpt from a message I received in early May:Hi Dr. Smith. You may not remember me, but I was in Genome Evolution this year. I enjoyed the class despite being absent for most of your live Zoom lectures because of the poor internet connection where I live. Believe it or not, my mark from your course was the highest of all my classes this term! Last summer, I moved back home to rural Northern Ontario to be closer to my family. My mom is a frontline worker and so I''ve been helping care for my elderly grandmother who has dementia as well as working part‐time as a tutor at the local high school to help pay tuition. All of this means that I''ve not paid as much attention to my studies as I should have. I''m hoping to go to graduate school this coming fall, but I have yet to find a professor who will write a reference for me. Would you please, please consider writing me a letter?I am sympathetic to the challenges students faced and continue to face during Covid‐19 and, therefore, I have gone out of my way to provide as many as I can with letters of support. But, it is no easy feat writing a good reference for someone you only know via an empty Zoom box and a few online assignments. My strategy has been to focus on their scholarly achievements in my courses, providing clear, tangible examples from examinations and essays, and to highlight the notable aspects of their CVs. I also make a point to stress how hard online learning can be for students (and instructors), reiterating some of the themes touched upon above. This may sound unethical to some readers but, in certain circumstances, I have allowed students to draft their own reference letters, which I can then vet, edit, and rewrite as I see fit.But it is not just undergraduates. After months and months of lockdowns and social distancing, many graduate students, postdocs, and professors are also struggling to find suitable references. In April, I submitted my application for promotion to Full Professor, which included the names of 20 potential reviewers. Normally, I would have selected at least some of these names from individuals I met at recent conferences and invited to university seminars, except I have not been to a conference in over 30 months. Moreover, all my recent invited talks have been on Zoom and did not include any one‐on‐one meetings with faculty or students. Thus, I had to include the names of scientists that I met over 3 years ago, hoping that my research made a lasting impression on them. I have heard similar anecdotes from many of my peers both at home and at other universities. Given all of this, I would encourage academics to be more forthcoming than they may have traditionally been when students or colleagues approach them for letters of support. Moreover, I think we could all be a little more forgiving and understanding when assessing our students and peers, be it for admissions into graduate school, promotion, or grant evaluations.Although it seems like life on university campuses is returning to a certain degree of normality, many scholars are still learning and working remotely, and who knows what the future may hold with regard to lockdowns. With this uncertainty, we need to do all we can to engage with and have constructive and enduring relationships with our university communities. For undergraduate and graduate students, this could mean regularly attending online office hours, even if it is only to introduce yourself, as well as actively participating in class discussions, whether they are in‐person, over Zoom, or on digital message boards. Also, do not disregard the potential and possibilities of remote volunteer research positions, especially those related to bioinformatics. Nearly, every laboratory in my department has some aspect of their research that can be carried out from a laptop computer with an Internet connection. Although not necessarily as enticing as working at the bench or in the field, computer‐based projects can be rewarding and an excellent path to a reference letter.If you are actively soliciting references, try and make it as easy as possible on your potential letter writers. Clearly and succinctly outline why you want this person to be a reference, what the letter writing/application process entails, and the deadline. Think months ahead, giving your references ample time to complete the letter, and do not be shy about sending gentle reminders. It is great to attach a CV, but also briefly highlight your most significant achievements in bullet points in your email (e.g., Dean''s Honours List 2021–22). This will save time for your references as they will not have to sift through many pages of a CV. No matter the eventual result of the application or award, be sure to follow up with your letter writers. There is nothing worse than spending time crafting a quality support letter and never learning the ultimate outcome of that effort. And, do not be embarrassed if you are unsuccessful and need to reach out again for another round of references—as Winston Churchill said, “Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.”     

Gaia Pigino: Inside the cell

Gaia Pigino studies the molecular mechanisms and principles of self-organization in cilia using 3D cryo-EM.

Gaia Pigino was only 3 yr old when she became fascinated with nature in the beautiful countryside of Siena, Italy, where she grew up. The neighbor’s daughter showed her a hen in the chicken coop, and they caught it in the act of laying an egg. Gaia remembers, “This was for me almost a shock, as my experience about eggs was that they come directly out of paper boxes!” Her father was also an important part of awakening Gaia’s curiosity for the amazing things in nature. He used to bring home the award-winning magazine Airone, the Italian equivalent of National Geographic. Gaia never missed an issue; even before learning to read, she could spend hours looking at the captivating photos of the wildlife. She wanted to understand what she was seeing, and maybe because of that, she was determined to do science.Gaia Pigino. Photo courtesy of Human Technopole.Gaia took her first “scientific” steps with Professor Fabio Bernini and Professor Claudio Leonzio at the University of Siena, where she studied bioindicators of soil contamination and detoxification strategies of soil arthropods as part of her PhD project. But it was later, when she joined the laboratory of Professor Pietro Lupetti and met Professor Joel Rosenbaum, a pioneer of cilia research, that Gaia discovered the world of 3D EM and felt her place was “inside a single cell.” She solidified her interest in the structure of protein complexes of cilia and flagella and boosted her passion for cryo-electron tomography (ET) in the laboratory of Professor Takashi Ishikawa, first at the ETH Zurich and then at the Paul Scherrer Institut in Switzerland. In 2012, Gaia started her own laboratory at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, Germany, with the vision of creating a truly interdisciplinary laboratory. Her team combines techniques from different fields such as biophysics, cell biology, and structural biology to answer open questions in the cilia field. Gaia recently moved countries again—this time to take over the position of Associate Head of the Structural Biology Research Centre, at the Human Technopole, Milan, Italy.We reached out to Gaia to learn more about her scientific journey and future research directions.What interested you about cilia?The first thing that attracted me toward cilia and flagella were some EM micrographs, by Professor Romano Dallai in Siena, that showed the beautiful geometrical microtubular structures of sperm flagella. I was intrigued by the apparent perfection of these organelles that clearly showed me that a cell is a coordinated system of complex molecular machines, the mechanism of many of which we do not understand. Soon after, Professor Joel Rosenbaum introduced me to the bidirectional transport of components inside cilia, which, he explained to me, is required for both assembly and function of virtually all cilia and flagella, from the motile cilia in our lungs to the primary cilium in our kidneys. He called it intraflagellar transport (IFT) and compared it to a Paternoster elevator, where the individual cabins were what we now call IFT trains. I was completely fascinated by the IFT system, the structure, the function, the dynamics, and the mechanism of which were still largely unknown. Quickly, I realized that in addition to IFT, cilia represent a virtually infinite source of open biological questions waiting to be solved, from the mechanics and regulation of the beating to the sensory function of primary cilia, and their importance for human health.What are some of the scientific questions currently of interest in your laboratory?In the past few years, we have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of the structure and the mechanism of the IFT (1, 2, 3). Currently, we are investigating how the structure of IFT trains relates to their functions by looking, in cryo-electron tomography, at how anterograde trains transform into retrograde trains and at how different ciliary cargoes are loaded on the trains. Beside this more classical line of research, we are exploring other approaches to study IFT, for instance we have developed a method to reactivate IFT trains in vitro on reconstituted microtubules. We want to use this approach to investigate the behavior of IFT trains, and their motors, in experimentally controllable conditions, e.g., in the presence of only certain tubulin posttranslational modifications. We have also made interesting discoveries about the distribution of tubulin posttranslational modifications on the microtubule doublets of the axoneme and how this spatially defined tubulin code affects the function of different ciliary components. We hope we will be able to share these new “stories” with the structural and cell biology community very soon!What kind of approach do you bring to your work?I believe that the main reason for why science became an integral, and dominant, part of my life is because it provides infinite riddles and continuous challenges. I have always been curious about how things work in nature, but I quickly realized that learning from books didn’t satisfy me. My desire was to be at the frontline, to be among the ones that see things happening in front of their eyes, at the microscope, for the first time. I wanted to be among the ones that make the discoveries that students read about in textbooks. Thus, what I bring to my work is an endless desire of solving biological riddles, curiosity, creativity, determination, and energy, with which I hope to inspire the members of my team. My laboratory uses an interdisciplinary approach; we use whatever method, technique or technology is needed to reach our goal, from the most basic tool to the most sophisticated cryo-electron microscope. And if the method we need does not yet exist, we try to invent it.A young Gaia Pigino (3 yr old) the day she discovered how eggs are made. Photo courtesy of Giancarlo Pigino.Could you tell us a bit about the Structural Biology Research Centre at the Human Technopole (HT)?At the HT Structural Biology Centre, we are working to create a vibrant and interdisciplinary scientific environment that will attract molecular, structural, cell, and computational biologists from all over the world. We are creating fantastic facilities, including one of the most well equipped and advanced electron microscopy facilities in Europe—and likely the world—headed by Paolo Swuec. My team, together with the teams of my colleague Alessandro Vannini and the research group leaders Ana Casañal, Francesca Coscia, and Philipp Erdmann, already cover a vast range of competences and know-how from classical molecular and structural biology approaches, such as crystallography and protein biophysics, to cryo-CLEM, cryo-FIB SEM and cryo-ET, all of which allow us to address questions in cell biology. Our goal is to create a scientific infrastructure and culture that will enable biologists to obtain a continuum of structural and functional information across scales.What did you learn during your PhD and postdoc that helped prepare you for being a group leader? What were you unprepared for?I learned that everyday research is mostly made of failures, but that with the right amount of obsession, persistence, curiosity, and creativity, it is always possible to succeed and discover new things. Being given the freedom to develop your own ideas and your own project very early in your career is a treat; science is not only about having good ideas! One needs to follow up on these ideas with intense work and troubleshooting to make them reality. In addition, I realized that being fearless and attempting what is considered too difficult by others, despite challenges, can turn into a worthy learning experience. Also, how you present your work to the scientific community matters for swinging the odds of success in your favor. Different places might work in very different ways, and conducting good science does not only depend on you, but also on the possibilities given to you by your environment.What was I unprepared for?—I guess several things, but one comes immediately to mind: I underestimated how much being responsible not only for my own life and career, but also the career of students, postdocs, and others in the laboratory, would affect me personally.Structure of the 96-nm axonemal repeat reconstructed by cryo-ET and subtomogram averaging. Image courtesy of Gonzalo Alvarez Viar, Pigino Lab.What has been the biggest accomplishment in your career so far?This is a tricky question for me... I tend to look into the future more than celebrating the past. I fight to succeed in something, but as soon as I conquer it, I find it less of an achievement than the thing I could conquer next. Nevertheless, I am happy about the discoveries and the papers published together with my students and postdocs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I am extremely excited about the fact that after many years of work I am now leading an interdisciplinary laboratory, where we combine techniques from different fields. I am also happy that three times my husband and I were able to move from one world class academic institution to the another to start exciting and fitting jobs and could still live together in the same place. We worked hard for this, but we also got lucky.What has been the biggest challenge in your career so far?I studied French in school; I had almost no exposure to spoken English until the end of my PhD. To avoid having to show my English insufficiencies, I did hide beside the board of my poster at the first international conference I attended in 2004! It took me a while to overcome this barrier and feel confident to express my thoughts and ideas in English.What do you think you would be if you were not a scientist?I had been a good fencer during my youth. I was a member of the Italian National Team between ages 14 and 19 and saw quite a bit of the world, which was cool! When my sporting career failed, due to diabetes, I was torn between art and science. I guess that in a parallel universe, I am a wildlife photographer and a potter specialized in wood kiln firing. [Gaia confesses that she misses “the amazing and addictive adrenaline rush of a good fencing match!”]Any tips for a successful research career?Do not compare your performances to the ones of the people at your career stage; compare yourself with people that are already successful one level higher than you currently are at. For example, if you are a PhD student, ask yourself what in your current performance separates you from being a good postdoc—once a postdoc, what is missing to be a good PI.     

Finding autophagy: It’s a question of how you look at it

To tell the truth, I find it difficult to work when flying, or even when sitting in an airport for an extended period of time. So, typically I take along a book to read. And when I truly cannot concentrate, for example when a flight is considerably delayed, I have even been known to resort to word puzzles. Depending on the type, they do not require much attention (that is, you can pick up right where you left off after you glance at the flight status screen for the twentieth or so time, even though you know nothing has changed), or effort (although you need to use a pen or pencil, not a keyboard), but nonetheless they can keep your mind somewhat occupied. I even rationalize doing them based on the assumption that they are sharpening my observational/pattern-finding skills. One type of word puzzle that is particularly mindless, but for that very reason I still enjoy in the above circumstances, is a word search; you are given a grid with letters and/or numbers, and a list of “hidden” terms, and you circle them within the grid, crossing them off the list as you go along. I do admit that the categories of terms used in the typical word searches can become rather mundane (breeds of dog, types of food, words that are followed by “stone,” words associated with a famous movie star, words from a particular television show, etc.). Therefore, on one of my last seminar trips I decided to generate my own word search, using the category of autophagy.