Support for a career in science

I am so very honored to receive the Women in Cell Biology Sandra K. Masur Senior Leadership Award from the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), particularly because many of the previous awardees have served as mentors and sources of inspiration throughout my own career. I also thank the ASCB for always striving to be maximally inclusive, in terms of both the scientists it supports and its broad vision of what constitutes cell biology. As a graduate student I gave one of my first talks at an ASCB meeting, and I am proud to have been an ASCB member for almost 30 years. In this essay, I describe my own career to illustrate the support that I believe is needed to achieve a career in science.

S. L. Wolin     

After the year of the dumpster fire

2020 has been one of the craziest and strangest years we have lived through. Now that it’s over, it’s an opportunity to show gratitude for all the good things. Subject Categories: S&S: History & Philosophy of Science

I moved to New York City the year of the attacks on September 11, 2001, one of the bleakest moments in the history of the United States. I was also in New York City when Superstorm Sandy hit in 2012. Luckily, much fewer people died due to the storm, but it was incredibly disruptive to many scientists in the affected area—my laboratory had to move four times over a period of 6 years in the storm’s aftermath. These were awful, tragic events, but 2020 may go down in the record books as one of the most stressful and crazy years in modern times. Not to be outdone, 2021 has started terribly as well with COVID‐19 still ravaging the world and an attack on the US Capitol, something I thought I’d never see in my lifetime. The unnecessary deaths and the damage to America’s “House of the People” were heartbreaking.While these events were surely awful, nothing will be as crushing as the deaths of family members, close friends, and the children of friends; perhaps, it is these experiences—and the death of a beloved dog—that prepared me for this year and made me grateful, maybe even more than usual, for what I have. But in the age of a pandemic, what am I particularly grateful for?I''m ridiculously grateful to have a job, a roof over my head, and food security. The older I get, the more I see illness and injury affect my colleagues, family, and friends, I increasingly appreciate my good health. I am grateful for Zoom (no, I have no investment in Zoom)—not for the innumerable seminars or meetings I have attended, but for the happy hours that helped to keep me sane during the lockdown. Some of these were with my laboratory, others with friends or colleagues, sometimes spread over nine time zones. Speaking of which, I’m also grateful for getting a more powerful router for the home office.I''m immeasurably grateful to be a scientist, as it allows me to satisfy my curiosity. While not a year‐round activity, it is immensely gratifying to be able to go to my laboratory, set up experiments, and watch the results coming in. Teaching and learning from students is an incredible privilege and educating the next generation of scientists how to set up a PCR or run a protein gel can, as a well‐known lifestyle guru might say, spark serious joy. For this reason, I’m eternally grateful to my trainees; their endless curiosity, persistence, and energy makes showing up to the laboratory a pleasure. My dear friend Randy Hampton recently told me he received a student evaluation, thanking him for telling his virtually taught class that the opportunity to educate and to be educated is something worth being grateful for, a sentiment I passed onto a group of students I taught this past fall. I believe they, too, were grateful.While all of the above things focus on my own life, there are much broader things. For one, I am so grateful to all of those around the globe who wear masks and keep their distance and thereby keep themselves and others safe. I am grateful for the election of an American president who proudly wears a mask—often quite stylishly with his trademark Ray‐Ban Aviators—and has made fighting the COVID‐19 pandemic his top priority. President Biden''s decision to ramp up vaccine production and distribution, along with his federal mask mandate, will save lives, hopefully not just in the United States but worldwide.This Gen‐X‐er is also especially grateful to the citizens of Generations Y and Z around the world for fighting for social justice; I am hopeful that the Black Lives Matter movement has got traction and that we may finally see real change in how communities of color are treated. I have been heartened to see that in my adopted home state of New York, our local politicians ensure that communities that have been historically underserved are prioritized for COVID‐19 testing and vaccinations. Along these lines, I am also incredibly encouraged by the election of the first woman who also happens to be of African and Asian heritage to the office of vice president. Times are a changin''...While it is difficult to choose one, top thing to be grateful for, I would personally go for science. I am stoked that, faced with a global crisis, science came to the rescue, as it often has in the past. If I had to find a silver lining in COVID‐19—albeit it would be for the darkest of clouds—I am grateful for all of our colleagues, who despite their usual arguing, quickly and effectively developed tests, provided advice, epidemiological data and a better understanding of the virus and its mode of infection, and ultimately developed therapies and vaccines to save lives. The same can be said for the biotech and pharmaceutical industry that, notwithstanding its often‐noted faults, has been instrumental in developing, testing and mass‐producing efficient and safe vaccines in blistering, record time. Needless to say, I have also much gratitude to all of the scientists and regulators at the FDA and elsewhere who work hard to make life as we once knew it come back to us, hopefully in the near future.Once again, thank you for everything, Science.     

Quantifying your body: A how-to guide from a systems biology perspective

During the coming decade we will see an accelerated digital transformation of healthcare. Leading this change within the institutional medical community are both the move to digital medical records and the use of digital biomedical measurement devices. In addition to this institutional evolution, there is a non-institutional, bottom-up, unorganized, highly idiosyncratic movement by early adopters to "quantify" their own bodies. In this article, I share my decade-long personal experience of tracking many blood and stool biomarkers, which provide insight into the health or disease of major subsystems of my body. These results are interpreted in the context of the genetics of my human DNA and that of the microbes in my gut. Even though I am a computer scientist and not a medical professional, by using commercially available tests and a systems biology integrative approach, I have become an early example of Leroy Hood's vision of the emergence of predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory (P4) medicine. It is an individual's story illustrating how each of us can contribute to realizing this paradigm shift.     

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.     

Discussion: Reply to Hitchcock

Christopher Hitchcocks discussion of my use of screening-off in analyzing the causal process of natural selection raises some interesting issues to which I am pleased to reply. The bulk of his article is devoted to some fairly general points in the theory of explanation. In particular, he questions whether or not my point that phenotype screens off genotype from reproductive success (in cases of organismic selection) supports my claim that the explanation of differential reproductive success should be in terms of phenotypic differences, not genotypic differences. I will respond to this and show why the two supposed counter-examples to my position fail.     

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.”     

A different kind of quarterback

I am not big on celebrations, nor do I accept many invitations to receive awards. There is much work to be done, and the reward is in the doing. I learned this lesson early from my parents, Martha and Robert Guyden. However, I am humbled that anyone would even mention my name in association with E. E. Just. I, like he, was born into a segregated America, and somehow we both found biology. I think Just's life story instigates a discussion on diversity in science, as well it should. However, after reading Tyrone Hayes' (2010 E. E. Just Award recipient) essay from last year, "Diversifying the Biological Sciences: Past Efforts and Future Challenges" (Hayes, 2010), I have little to add on the subject. His words gave voice to my thoughts. That being said, I would like to use these pages to describe my journey into the "Cell" and the people who "hoed the row ahead of me."     

Decoding the genetics of rare disease: an interview with Monkol Lek

Monkol Lek, Assistant Professor at Yale University School of Medicine, and Associate Editor at Disease Models & Mechanisms, dedicates his research to finding a genetic diagnosis and improving treatments for rare disease patients. As he originally studied computer engineering at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, he now utilises computational methods to optimise large-scale genetic studies, provide globally accessible resources for genetic research communities and, importantly, resolve diagnostic odysseys for rare disease patients. Monkol completed his PhD in Prof. Kathryn North''s lab at the University of Sydney, studying the genetics of muscle strength and performance, and then continued his investigation of muscle disease in Prof. Daniel MacArthur''s lab at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute. During his postdoc, he led several large-scale studies aimed at distinguishing pathogenic from benign variants, including the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) project ( Lek et al., 2016). Monkol established his own lab at Yale University School of Medicine, which continues to improve the diagnosis and treatment of rare muscle disease, and also focuses on underserved populations, whose genetic mutations are not as well characterised as those of European ancestry. In this interview, Monkol discusses how his own diagnosis with limb girdle muscular dystrophy has shaped his career and what he envisions for the future of genetic research in rare disease.

You have a very unique career path – could you tell us a little bit about that? My first degree was in computer engineering. When I first went to university, I studied the hardware and software of computers. I really liked the software aspect of the degree, and so I worked for IBM as a software developer when I finished university. However, during the last few years of university, I noticed that my muscles were getting weaker. My university was on a big hill, with classes at the bottom and top of the hill, and I had to stand up for about 3 h a day while commuting on public transport. It started becoming obvious that I had something wrong with my muscles because I felt totally exhausted at the end of the day. It was frustrating, because I felt that my performance at university was impacted by something that had nothing to do with my ability to think. So, I went from doctor to doctor to try to find out what was wrong with me. As a lot of doctors are not trained in rare diseases, they didn''t consider a rare disease diagnosis. Then one doctor did a blood test for creatine kinase (CK), which is leaked into the bloodstream when muscle is damaged. In healthy people, high levels of CK are detected in the bloodstream after they''ve done intensive exercise, like a marathon. If someone hasn''t done something like that, but they have high levels of circulating CK, it could be an indication that there''s something wrong with their muscles. As I had high levels of CK in my bloodstream, I then went to a neurologist, which was when I got a clinical diagnosis. At that point, they didn’t know the root cause of the problem, but they knew that I have a muscle disease based on several tests, including a nerve conduction test.I received this clinical diagnosis during my time in IBM, and that''s when I became dissatisfied with my job, because I felt that I was using all my talents to make a very big, international company richer. I was also becoming frustrated when visiting the neurologist every 6 months, as all they would tell me was that my muscles were getting weaker, which I already knew. I began to think that not much was happening in the neuromuscular disease field if that''s the best they could offer me. I wanted to know what the root cause of my disease was and if there were any treatment options. I came to the conclusion that no one would care about my disease more than I would, because I''m the one that has lived with it every day of my life.That''s when I decided to leave IBM and pursue a career in researching muscle disease. It didn''t go down well with my parents and friends, because I was leaving a well-paid job to go back to university to get paid nothing for an unknown number of years. If I had known my chances of success – completing a meaningful PhD, doing a meaningful postdoc and landing a faculty position – I wouldn''t have gone on this journey. I have been very fortunate, but I wasn''t always in the right place at the right time.When I finished my undergraduate degree in bioinformatics and physiology at the University of New South Wales, I started a PhD in Melbourne, but it didn''t work out, because not all supervisors are perfect. My wife and I then returned to Sydney, where my wife bumped into one of the professors from our undergraduate degree. She explained that we''d had a bad experience in Melbourne with our PhDs, but our passion was still to do muscle research. The professor''s daughter was researching muscle disease in Kathryn North''s lab at the University of Sydney, and she invited us to visit the lab. I was offered an opportunity to do my PhD in Kathryn''s lab, but I was initially reluctant as it was a diagnostic lab, and I was more interested in developing therapies for people with muscle disease. However, I thought I could still learn a lot about muscle physiology and, in the long term, I''m glad that I received training and mentorship from Kathy''s lab. Also, if I hadn''t done my PhD there, I wouldn''t have met Daniel MacArthur, my future boss. He was a very talented student in Kathy''s lab, who taught me a lot about scientific communication among other things, and I taught him some coding skills. He left to work on the 1000 Genomes Project in Cambridge, UK, but I kept in contact with him to get his advice on my project.When I was finishing my PhD, Daniel asked if I wanted to join the lab he was setting up in Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute. His lab was going to study common loss-of-function mutations in human populations using large datasets from the 1000 Genomes Project, but he offered me a project investigating neuromuscular diseases. As soon as I submitted my PhD thesis, I started working in his lab. This was perfect timing, because it was 2012, when exome sequencing had recently been published in the context of rare diseases (Ng et al., 2010) and, more importantly, it was becoming affordable, in terms of research. I waited over 10 years for a genetic diagnosis, so my goal was that no one should have to wait that long in the future.Through collaboration with our former PhD lab, Daniel and I used samples from undiagnosed patients to find answers for Australian families. The first family had two affected girls with undiagnosed nemaline myopathy, who had been on a diagnostic odyssey for about 9 years. It was amazing how quickly we progressed from receiving the samples to identifying the novel gene, LMOD3, associated with their disease (Yuen et al., 2014). This was part of my main project during my postdoc – working on gene discovery in neuromuscular diseases and finding answers for patients that have been waiting years and years to get a genetic diagnosis (Ghaoui et al., 2015; O''Grady et al., 2016).The project that most people know me for is the ExAC project, which was initially my ‘side’ project during my postdoc. The idea was to create a big database of all rare variants that we see in the general population, so we can better interpret the rare variants that we see in rare disease patients. When we were creating it, we thought that it may be useful to other researchers around the world. Therefore, we tried to ensure, through data-use agreements and consent processes, that we could share as many of our findings as possible. I''m happy to say my side project was quite successful. After that, I led other projects, including an analysis group in the Centre for Mendelian Genomics, to expand that framework and idea across all rare diseases, not just neuromuscular diseases (Baxter et al., 2022).I was having a lot of fun at the Broad Institute, and I was co-author on a lot of high-impact papers. However, the reason I left the Broad Institute was that I wanted to be involved in the full journey for the patients. Sometimes scientists don''t understand that getting a genetic diagnosis is not the end of the journey for a patient. After the diagnosis they want to know what treatment options are available. Yale gave me the opportunity to continue doing the gene discovery and analytical work that I was doing at the Broad Institute, plus the capability of doing experiments with mouse models to investigate gene replacement therapies and other therapeutic approaches.

“I waited over 10 years for a genetic diagnosis, so my goal was that no one should have to wait that long in the future.”

How has being both a researcher and a patient affected your career? When I was first diagnosed, there was a neurologist who discouraged me from researching my own disease and this became the basis of my TEDx talk, because I thought it was very condescending. I thought, “Just because I have this disease, it doesn''t mean that I have a low IQ”. However, this experience motivated me more. I discussed it with Kathy before starting my PhD, and her encouragement and enthusiasm was refreshing. At the time, in the early 2000s, people hadn''t accepted the idea of patients researching their own disease. Things have changed since then, mainly because there are more examples of it now (Branca, 2019), but at the time, it was really hard for me to progress in science. I always thought that people were looking at me with sympathy, and I felt like I had to achieve twice as much to get the same respect as someone else who wasn''t as talented or didn''t work as hard as me. It was frustrating, but in everyday life people still correlate physical disability with intellectual disability. For example, if my wife is pushing me in the wheelchair in public, no one ever directs a question to me because they assume that the physical disability comes with mental disabilities. There are well-known examples of scientists with physical disabilities, like Stephen Hawking, but it is still challenging in academia when you have a physical disability and people make certain assumptions about you.On the other hand, just before starting at Yale, my collaborators at the University of Massachusetts took a skin biopsy from me. With this skin biopsy, they created induced pluripotent stem cells, and, using CRISPR, they corrected my disease-associated gene variant in the cultured cells. They then published this in a Nature article, in which fig. 1 is the experiment in which they corrected my mutation (Iyer et al., 2019). Are there specific skills or knowledge you learned while working in computer engineering that have helped shape and develop your research today? When I started my PhD, there was an increase in how much genetics research, and biological research in general, relied upon big data. It can be very challenging to work with big data if you''re a biologist without a background in computer science. You can go online to teach yourself to an extent, but it gives you an advantage to learn the theory behind a lot of algorithms and other aspects of software engineering, in a formal setting. It makes the difference between building tools that take a week to analyse a set of data and building tools that take a few minutes to analyse the same data. If you can analyse the data more quickly, you can explore different possibilities and ideas much more quickly. You can''t learn everything online, and having a firm foundation of knowledge can enable you to work with big data in an efficient way.The other thing that you learn from computer science is a certain mindset when approaching problem solving. This is because you have to debug code frequently and, due to this fast pace, you learn quickly. This helped me to troubleshoot problems in biological research quickly.

“Getting a genetic diagnosis is not the end of the journey for a patient. After the diagnosis they want to know what treatment options are available.”

What do you think are the key challenges for rare disease research and diagnosis moving forward? I now have a greater appreciation of the challenges because I see it from two points of view: one as a researcher in a group and one as a PI, who leads the research. The diagnosis rate for rare disease is about 50%, so there are still 50% of patients with a disease that has an unknown genetic cause. The gold standard requirement for associating a new disease gene with a novel phenotype is that it presents in multiple unrelated families (MacArthur et al., 2014). However, when you work with rare diseases, there is the issue of small sample numbers. One challenge for basic scientists is creating good collaborations with physician scientists across the world to enable you to create a large enough dataset.The other challenge is the cost of research for these diseases with unknown genetic cause. The 50% of cases for which we know the genetic cause are no longer considered an area of research, as clinical genetic services can now diagnose these patients. To diagnose the remaining patients, you have to use more expensive technologies, such as long-read sequencing.The last thing is the interpretation of rare variants. Although the ExAC project helped with this, there is still a challenge. For example, if a patient has a rare genetic variant, this doesn''t necessarily mean it is the cause of their rare disease. This is because even healthy people have rare variants. So, we have a massive interpretation challenge in rare disease genetics, which can be overcome by creating a laboratory model system with that genetic variant to investigate it further. However, if you had 1000 variants to consider, it''s not going to scale as an animal model. So, an important question is how can we interpret these variants in a scalable manner? This is one of the main driving forces behind the new Subject Focus, ‘Genetic variance in human disease: decoding diversity to advance modern medicine’, that we are launching in DMM. You have led and coordinated several studies involving very large cohorts. From your experience what are the key components of a successful study? I think the key to a successful large cohort study with unsolved rare disease patients, is the amount of structured phenotype data you can collect. This requires a good collaborator, who has the time to prepare that data in a meaningful way, which makes it easier to find other families with the same rare disease. The other thing is to have the ability to recontact patients and collect different samples from them, because we''re moving to a more multi-omics world. Therefore, we need the ability to go beyond just collecting DNA samples. Also, we''re in a world where we''re starting to link data to electronic health records, which allows the collection of deeper and richer phenotype data that enable associations to be made between families.In addition, you can''t work in isolation. In order for us to make a meaningful impact, we need to work with groups that have specialties outside of our own. For instance, we collaborate with groups that specialise in the interpretation of non-coding variants. This is important as variants in these regions could hold the answers for some of those unsolved cases.Another key aspect to a successful study is collaboration with statistical geneticists because some of the more complicated questions are best asked by them. Some of these questions go beyond monogenic diseases. We are seeing convergence between genome-wide association studies, looking for many variants, each with very small contributions to a disease, and studies of Mendelian disease that are looking for one gene that causes disease. The field has to start looking at diseases in the middle of this spectrum, which requires statistical geneticists. This is because you need to make sure that your conclusions are correct. For instance, if you''re asking whether a rare disease is caused by a combination of two genes, then you must have a robust statistical model to show that these variants aren''t presenting together by chance. You have to prove that those two variants are acting in concert, instead of independently, to cause this disease. My colleagues at Yale published a great paper that demonstrated this concept (Timberlake et al., 2016).Lastly, it is important to forge meaningful collaborations beyond academia. A lot of my colleagues are being funded by industry collaboration, and a lot of these companies have access to more samples than we do in academia. You can also collaborate with large biobanks, such as the UK Biobank, which has a rich set of phenotype data and also the ability to recontact patients (Glynn and Greenland, 2020). The FinnGen project is a recent public–private collaboration that combines genetic data with electronic health records from Finnish biobank participants to improve disease diagnosis and treatment (Kurki et al., 2022 preprint). So, working with biobanks and industry is another way of increasing sample numbers, which is the biggest challenge in rare disease research.

“We don''t want to create disparity in terms of health, especially in the context of genetics, which will continue to become more prominent in modern medicine.”

You dedicate a lot of your research towards patients in underserved populations, such as East Asian populations, whose genetic mutations are not as well characterised as those of European ancestry. Can you explain the importance of this? One of the reasons that it took over 10 years for me to get a genetic diagnosis was because the gene that causes my disease was first reported as not commonly associated with disease in populations of European ancestry. The problem with biomedical research is that when people read that, they think it applies to everyone, even patients who have non-European ancestry. Although the gene that causes my disease aligned with my muscle disease phenotype, it wasn''t sequenced because of this assumption. They only decided to sequence this gene once they did linkage analysis of my family, and this was the only gene associated with neuromuscular disease in the linkage region they identified. This is the reason why we need to have good data on all populations. The ExAC and gnomAD studies that I worked on acknowledged that we need good allele frequency data for populations of East Asian, South Asian, Latino and African ancestry, because we don''t want to create disparity in terms of health, especially in the context of genetics, which will continue to become more prominent in modern medicine.If you want to deliver the best healthcare, you have to realise that some variants and diseases are more common in certain populations, such as Tay-Sachs disease, which is common amongst the Jewish community, and sickle cell anaemia, which is more prevalent in populations of African ancestry. By understanding these differences, we can actually find a genetic diagnosis a lot quicker. If it''s not a de novo variant, and is instead a variant inherited in the population, and if you''ve made the discovery in East Asians, there is a better chance of identifying more incidences of this variant in the population in which it was first discovered.I think it''s also good for validation of data, because if you had discovered a potential disease-causing variant and you find that this variant has a frequency of 1% or higher in a non-European population, then it''s impossible for it to be the cause of a rare disease, regardless of its frequency in a European population (Lek et al., 2016).     

An unconventional route to becoming a cell biologist

I am honored to be the E. B. Wilson Award recipient for 2015. As we know, it was E. B. Wilson who popularized the concept of a “stem cell” in his book The Cell in Development and Inheritance (1896, London: Macmillan & Co.). Given that stem cell research is my field and that E. B. Wilson is so revered within the cell biology community, I am a bit humbled by how long it took me to truly grasp his vision and imaginative thinking. I appreciate it deeply now, and on this meaningful occasion, I will sketch my rather circuitous road to cell biology.I grew up in a suburb of Chicago. My father was a geochemist, and for everyone whose parents worked at Argonne National Laboratories, Downers Grove was the place to live. My father’s sister was a radiobiologist and my uncle was a nuclear chemist, both at Argonne; they lived in the house next door. Across the street from their house was the Schmidtke’s Popcorn Farm—a great door to knock on at Halloween. The cornfields were also super for playing hide-and-seek, particularly when you happened to be shorter than those Illinois cornstalks.Open in a separate windowElaine FuchsI remember when the first road in the area was paved. It made biking and roller-skating an absolute delight. Fields of butterflies were everywhere, and with development came swamps and ponds filled with pollywogs and local creeks with crayfish. It was natural to become a biologist. When coupled with a family of scientists and a mother active in the Girl Scouts, all the resources were there to make it a perfect path to becoming a scientist.I could hardly wait until I was in junior high school, when I could enter science fairs. You would think that my science-minded family might help me choose and develop a research project. True to their mentoring ethos, they left these decisions to me. My first project was on crayfish behavior. I recorded the response of the crayfish I had caught to “various external stimuli.” At the end of this assault, I dissected the crayfish and, using “comparative anatomy,” attempted to identify all the parts. The second project was no gentler. I focused on tadpole metamorphosis and the effects of thyroid hormone in accelerating development at low concentrations and death at elevated concentrations. Somehow, I ended up going all the way to the state fair, where it became clear that I had serious competition. That experience, however, whetted my appetite to gain more lab experience and to learn to read the literature more carefully.My experience with high school biology prompted me to gravitate toward chemistry, physics, and math. When it came to college, my father told me that if there was a $2000/year (translated in 2015 to be $30,000/year) reason why I should go anywhere besides the University of Chicago (where Argonne scientists received a 50% tuition cut for their children) or the University of Illinois (then $200/year tuition), we could “discuss” it further. Having a sister, father, aunt, and uncle who went to the University of Chicago, I chose the University of Illinois and saved my Dad a bundle of money. At Illinois, I thought I might revisit biology, but my choices for a major were “biology for teachers” or “honors biology.” The first did not interest me; the second seemed intimidating.I enrolled as a chemistry major. Four years went by, during which time I never took a biology class. I enjoyed quantum mechanics, physics, and differential equations, and problem solving became one of my strengths. In the midst of the Vietnam War era, however, Illinois was a hotbed of activity. I was inspired to apply to the Peace Corps, with a backup plan to pursue science that would be more biomedically relevant than quantum mechanics. I was accepted to go to Uganda with the Peace Corps, but with Idi Amin in office, my path to science was clear. Fortunately, the schools I applied to accepted me, even though, in lieu of GRE scores, I had submitted a three-page essay on why I did not think another exam was going to prove anything. I chose Princeton’s biochemistry program. This turned out to be a great, if naïve choice, as only after accepting their offer did I take a biochemistry class to find out what I was getting into. I chose to carry out my PhD with a terrific teacher of intermediary metabolism, Charles Gilvarg, who worked on bacterial cell walls. My thesis project was to tackle how spores break down one cell wall and build another as they transition from quiescence to vegetative growth.By my fourth year of graduate school, I was trained as a chemist and biochemist and was becoming increasingly hooked on biomedical science. I listened to a seminar given by Howard Green, who had developed a method to culture cells from healthy human skin under conditions in which they could be maintained and propagated for hundreds of generations without losing their ability to make tissue. At the time, Howard referred to them as epidermal keratinocytes, but in retrospect, these were the first stem cells ever to be successfully cultured. I was profoundly taken by the system, and Howard’s strength in cell biology inspired me. It was the perfect match for pursuing my postdoctoral research. The time happened to be at the cusp of DNA recombinant technology.At MIT, I learned how to culture these cells. I wanted to determine their program of gene expression and how this changed when epidermal progenitors embark on their terminal differentiation program. While the problem in essence was not so different from that of my graduate work at Princeton, I had miraculously managed to receive my PhD without ever having isolated protein, RNA, or DNA. Working in a quintessential cell biology lab and tackling a molecular biology question necessitated venturing outside the confines of the Green lab and beyond the boundaries of my expertise. Fortunately, this was easy at MIT. Richard Hynes, Bob Horvitz, Bob Weinberg, and Graham Walker were all assistant professors, and their labs were very helpful, as were those of David Baltimore and Phil Sharp, a mere walk across the street. On the floor of my building, Steve Farmer, Avri Ben Ze’ev, Gideon Dreyfuss, and Ihor Lemischka were in Sheldon Penman’s lab just down the hall, and they were equally interested in mRNA biology, providing daily fuel for discussions. Uttam Rhajbandary’s and Gobind Khorana’s labs were also on the same floor, making it easy to learn how to make oligo(dT)-Sepharose to purify my mRNAs. Vernon Ingram’s lab was also on the same floor, so learning to make rabbit reticulocyte lysates to translate my mRNAs was also possible. Howard bought a cryostat, so I could section human skin and separate the layers. And as he was already working with clinicians at Harvard to apply his ability to create sheets of epidermal cells for the treatment of burn patients, I had access to the leftover scraps of human tissue that were also being used in these operations.The three years of my postdoc were accompanied by three Fuchs and Green papers. The first showed that epidermal keratinocytes spend most of their time expressing a group of keratin proteins with distinct sequences. The second showed that these keratins were each encoded by distinct mRNAs. The third showed that, as epidermal keratinocytes commit to terminally differentiate, they switch off expression of basal keratins (K5 and K14) and switch on the expression of suprabasal keratins (K1 and K10). That paper also revealed that different stratified tissues express the same basal keratins but distinct sets of suprabasal keratins. I am still very proud of these accomplishments, and my MIT experience made me thirst to discover more about the epidermis and its stem cells.My first and only real job interview came during my second year of postdoc, at a time when I was not looking for a job. I viewed the opportunity, initiated by my graduate advisor, as a free trip home to visit my parents and my trial run to prepare me for future searching. I was thrilled when this interview materialized into an offer to join the faculty, for which the University of Chicago extended my start time to allow me to complete my three years with Howard.Times have clearly changed, and it is painful to see talented young scientists struggle so much more today. That said, I have never looked ahead very far, and having a lack of expectations or worry is likely to be as helpful today as it was then. I am sure it is easier said than done, but this has also been the same for my science. I have always enjoyed the experiments and the joy of discovery. There was no means to an end other than to contemplate what the data meant in a broader scope.I arrived at the University of Chicago with a well-charted route. My aim was to make a cDNA library and clone and characterize the sequences and genes for the differentially expressed keratins I had identified when I was at MIT. It was three months into my being at Chicago when my chair lined up some interviews for me to hire a technician. I was so immersed in my science that I did not want to take time to hire anyone. I hired the first technician I interviewed. Fortunately, it worked out. However, I turned graduate students away the first year, preferring to carry out the experiments with my technician and get results. After publishing two more papers—one on the existence of two types of keratins that were differentially expressed as pairs and the other on signals that impacted the differential expression of these keratin pairs, I decided to accept a student, who analyzed the human keratin genes. My first postdoc was a fellow grad student with me at Princeton; she studied signaling and keratin gene expression. My second postdoc was initiated by my father, who chatted with him at the elevator when I was moving into my apartment. He set up DNA sequencing and secondary-structure prediction methods, and the lab stayed small, focused, and productive.I was fascinated by keratins, how they assembled into a network of intermediate filaments (Ifs). When thalassemias and sickle cell anemia turned out to be due to defects in globin genes, I began to wonder whether there might be human skin disorders with defective keratin genes. I had no formal training in genetics, and there were no hints of what diseases to focus on. Thus, rather than using positional cloning to identify a gene mutation associated with a particular disease, we took a reverse approach: we first identified the key residues for keratin filament assembly. After discovering that mutations at these sites acted dominant negatively, we engineered transgenic mice harboring our mutant keratin genes and then diagnosed the mouse pathology. Our diagnoses, first for our K14 mutations and then for our K10 mutations, turned out to be correct: on sequencing the keratins from humans with epidermolysis bullosa simplex (EBS), we found K14 or K5 mutations; similarly, we found K1 or K10 mutations in affected, but not in unaffected, members of families with epidermolytic hyperkeratosis (EH). Both are autosomal-dominant disorders in which patients have skin blistering or degeneration upon mechanical stress. Without a proper keratin network, the basal (EBS) or suprabasal (EH) cells could not withstand pressure. Ironically, family sizes of all but the mildest forms of these disorders were small, meaning that the disorders were not amenable to positional cloning. But the beauty of this approach is that once we had made the connection to the diseases, we understood their underlying biology. In addition, the IF genes are a superfamily of more than 100 genes differentially expressed in nearly all tissues of the body. Once we had established EBS as the first IF gene disorder, the pathology and biology set a paradigm for a number of diseases of other tissues that turned out to be due to defects in other IF genes.Fortunately, I had students, Bob Vassar (professor, Northwestern University) and Tony Letai (associate professor, Harvard Medical School), and a postdoc, Pierre Coulombe (chair, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Johns Hopkins University), who jumped into this fearless venture with me. We had to go off campus to learn transgenic technology. I had never worked with mice before. When Bob returned to campus with transgenic expertise, we hired and trained Linda Degenstein, whose love for animal science was unparalleled. Pierre’s prior training in electron microscopy was instrumental in multiple ways. Additionally, I was not a dermatologist and had no access to human patients. Fortunately Amy Paller, MD, at Northwestern volunteered to work with us.The success of this project attests to an important recipe: 1) Pursue a question you are passionate about. 2) In carrying out rigorous, well-controlled experiments, each new finding should build upon the previous ones. 3) If you have learned to be comfortable with being uncomfortable, then you will not be afraid to chart new territory when the questions you are excited to answer take an unanticipated turn. 4) Science does not operate in a vacuum. Interact well with your lab mates and take an interest in their science as well as your own. And wherever you embark upon a pathway in which the lab’s expertise is limited, do not hesitate to reach out broadly to other labs and universities.I have followed this recipe now for more than three decades, and it seems to work pretty well. A lab works only when its students and postdocs are interactive, naturally inquisitive, and freely share their ideas and findings. I have been blessed to have a number of such individuals in my lab over the years. When push comes to shove, I am always inclined first to shave from the “brilliant” category and settle for smart, nice people who are passionate and interactive about science and original and unconventional in their thinking.So what questions have I been most passionate about? I have always been fascinated with how tissues form during development, how they are maintained in the adult, and how tissue biology goes awry in human disorders, particularly cancers. I first began to think about this problem during my days at Princeton. I also developed a dogma back then that I still hold: to understand malignancies, one must understand what is normal before one can appreciate what is abnormal. I think this is why I have spent so much of my life focusing on normal tissue morphogenesis, despite my passion for being at the interface with medicine. And because skin has so many amazingly interesting complexities, and because it is a great system to transition seamlessly between a culture dish and an animal, I have never found a reason to choose any other tissue over the one I chose many years back.I will not dwell on the various facets of skin biology we have tackled over the years. Our initial work on keratins was to obtain markers for progenitors and their differentiating lineages. This interest broadened to understanding how proliferative progenitors form cytoskeletal networks and how the cytoskeleton makes dynamic rearrangements during tissue morphogenesis.From the beginning, the lab has also been fascinated by how tissue remodeling occurs in response to environmental signals. Indeed, signals from the microenvironment trigger changes in chromatin dynamics and gene expression within tissue stem cells. Ultimately, this leads to changes in proteins and factors that impact on cell polarity, spindle orientation, asymmetric versus symmetric fate specifications, and ultimately, the balance between proliferation and differentiation.The overarching theme of my lab over these decades is clear, namely, to understand the signals that unspecified progenitors receive that instruct them to generate a stratified epidermis, make hair follicles, or make sweat and sebaceous glands. And if we can understand how this happens, then how are stem cells born, and how do they replace dying cells or regenerate tissue after injury? And, finally, how does this process change during malignant progression or in other aberrant skin conditions?In tackling tissue morphogenesis, I have had to forgo knowing the details of each tree and instead focus on the forest. There are many times when I stand back and can only admire those who are able to dissect beautiful cellular mechanisms with remarkable precision. But I crossed that bridge some years ago in tackling a problem that mandates an appreciation of nearly all the topics covered in Bruce Alberts’ textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell. I am now settled comfortably with the uncomfortable, and the problem of tissue morphogenesis in normal biology and disease continues to keep me more excited about each year’s research than I was the previous year. Perhaps the difference between my days as a student, postdoc, and assistant professor and now is that my joy and excitement is as strong for those I mentor and have mentored as it is for myself.     

Finding your unique path in science

I always found it curious that in science, we value unique, creative thinkers, but we teach scientists to progress in a formulaic manner that rarely takes each person’s individual strengths into account. Surprisingly, when we break the mold, we are often rewarded for it. This cycle of learning to survive using conventional wisdom but being rewarded for a unique path outside of it seems to be an unspoken key to success. I am honored to be awarded the 2020 Women in Cell Biology Junior Award for Excellence in Research and am thrilled to share some of the unconventional guiding principles that brought me to where I am in this rich scientific landscape. The game changers in the early phase of my career were informal mentors, open scientific communication, and persistence in pursuing difficult scientific questions.

Prachee Avasthi     

The case of philanthropy: bringing scientists and philanthropic donors together,for good

Summary: Philanthropists and scientists share many common interests, and yet they are not familiar with each other''s ways of thinking. This Editorial highlights how to improve their mutual understanding to advance research and life sciences.

“Wealth is not new. Neither is charity. But the idea of using private wealth imaginatively, constructively, and systematically to attack the fundamental problems of mankind is new.” – John Gardner

Philanthropy, derived from private wealth, stands unique as a vital source of scientific funding. Yet many scientists don''t truly understand the workings of this form of charitable giving. Some are even wary of it, and believe that a divide between the worlds of science and business is a normal state of affairs. My experience has exposed striking similarities between the two specialties: both dedicate their resources to innovation and the sincere desire to do good for their fellow man.I''ve been lucky to work on both sides of the fence. I conducted research for my PhD at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, PA, and at Sloan Kettering Institute in New York City, NY, where I worked on the Id1 gene and its role in the molecular mechanism of mammalian cell differentiation. I later moved to the Pershing Square Foundation. In 2013, to support young investigators with bold and risky ideas in cancer research in the New York area, the Pershing Square Foundation partnered with the Sohn Conference Foundation to create the Pershing Square Sohn Research Alliance (PSSCRA). Since the organization''s founding, I have served as its Executive Director. As a result of my career experience, I understand firsthand the role of philanthropic support of medical research. I am always excited to work with new, young and innovative talent, and to introduce that talent into the social mainstream.     

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.     

Amoralist Rationalism? A Response to Joel Marks

In a recent article, Joel Marks presents the amoralist argument against vivisection, or animal laboratory experimentation. He argues that ethical theories that seek to uncover some universal morality are in fact useless and unnecessary for ethical deliberations meant to determine what constitutes an appropriate action in a specific circumstance. I agree with Marks’ conclusion. I too believe that vivisection is indefensible, both from a scientific and philosophical perspective. I also believe that we should become vegan (unfortunately, like the two philosophers mentioned by Marks, I too am still struggling to reduce my meat and dairy consumption). However, I am in the dark as to Marks’ vision of normative deliberations in the spirit of amoralism and desirism.     

Health Care Professionals' Views on Discussing Sexual Wellbeing with Patients Who Have Had a Stroke: A Qualitative Study

Objectives

To examine the experiences of health care professionals discussing sexual wellbeing with patients who have had a stroke.

Design

In-depth qualitative interview study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis.

Participants

30 health care professionals purposively recruited to include different roles and settings along the stroke patient pathway in secondary and primary care.

Setting

Two hospitals and three general practices in the West Midlands, UK.

Results

Sexual wellbeing was a topic that participants did not raise with patients and was infrequently raised by patients. Barriers to raising discussion were on four levels: structural, health care professional, patient, and professional-patient interface. Barriers within these levels included: sexual wellbeing not present within hospital stroke policy; the perception that sexual wellbeing was not within participants'' role; participants'' concern that raising the issue could cause harm to the patient; and the views that discussion would be inappropriate with older people or unimportant to women. Resources exist to aid discussion but many participants were unaware of them, and most of those that were, did not use them routinely.

Conclusions

Participants lacked motivation, ownership, and the confidence and skills to raise sexual wellbeing routinely after stroke. Similar findings have been reported in cancer care and other taboo subjects such as incontinence potentially resulting in a sub-optimal experience for patients. Normalisation of the inclusion of sensitive topics in discussions post-stroke does not seem to need significant structural intervention and simple changes such as information provision and legitimisation through consideration of the issue in standard care policies may be all that is required. The experiences recounted by professionals in this study suggest that such changes are needed now.     

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.     

The story of science: successes,failures, luck,privilege, and bias

I am incredibly honored to receive the 2021 WICB Junior Award for Excellence in Research in WICB’s golden jubilee year. In this essay, I traverse my scientific journey starting with my PhD, highlighting the highs and the lows and how these intersect with luck, privilege, and bias.

V. AnanthanarayananMy pursuit for a PhD started with a hiccup—I had applied to several places in the United States, but barely got any offers due to the economic upheaval that happened that year (2008). I had to forgo any dreams of a PhD in the United States and remained in Bangalore, India to complete a project I had started with William (Bill) Thies at Microsoft Research India on a programming language for expressing biology protocols. Applying to U.S. schools was an expensive task, one which I was unwilling to put my family through again. So, a year later, when I recommenced my search for a PhD position, I set my sights on Europe. I had heard about the PhD program at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics (MPI-CBG ) at Dresden from a friend who had just joined the institute for her PhD. Fortunately, I received an interview call from MPI-CBG. At the end of a crucial interview week at Dresden, I “matched” with Iva Tolic´’s (now Institut Ruđer Boškovic´, Croatia) lab for my PhD. At the start of my PhD, I knew next to nothing about the cytoskeleton, motor proteins, or microscopy, but I found Iva and my lab members to be some of the warmest and most welcoming people. I made friends for life and graduated with a PhD in Biophysics, with a thesis focused on understanding the regulation of the motor protein cytoplasmic dynein. I was lucky to have been able to get a position at MPI-CBG and join Iva’s lab—of the other three places in Europe I had applied to for a PhD, only one other institute invited me for an interview, which also proved to be unsuccessful.On completing my PhD in 2014, I didn’t quite know what I wanted to do. Due to personal reasons, I had to return to India and was open to options in both industry and academia. But with my training in motor protein and cytoskeleton research, I had some ideas for exploring scientific questions related to dynein activation. However, most labs I approached for a postdoctoral position were not open to a project that was outside the realm of their research focus. Nonetheless, Iva, Nenad Pavin (University of Zagreb), and Jonathon (Joe) Howard (Yale University), who were members of my thesis advisory committee, gave me the courage to continue in academia. In my naïveté, I went ahead and applied for the INSPIRE Faculty Fellowship, which is targeted at fresh PhDs and junior postdoctoral fellows to establish their own independent group at an Indian institute. To my surprise, I ended up getting the fellowship. The next issue was finding a host institute that was preferably in Bangalore, where my partner was based. I applied at a few different places, but only after I attended IndiaBioscience’s Young Investigator Meeting in 2014 did I get the chance to meet representatives of potential host institutes, including the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). After a couple of research seminars at IISc, my application was assessed and I was offered the position of INSPIRE Faculty Fellow at the newly formed Centre for BioSystems Science and Engineering, IISc.While I did not have any additional start-up funding, I was given the infrastructure and the independence to pursue my research program. It was slow and frustrating at the start, not unlike most starting labs. I always wondered if it might have been easier if I had had a regular postdoctoral stint. During this time, I also started recognizing how hard it was to be a woman in Indian academia. As a woman principal investigator, one’s authority, expertise, and ability are constantly called into question. Justifying your presence in academia on a daily basis is an exhausting task. I had a great mentor in Sandhya Visweswariah (IISc) who helped me navigate the system. I also had an extremely supportive partner, who kept me going through some of the worst times. Eventually, my lab and I landed on our feet (more about this in “My INSPIRE’d Journey”). Our research has been recognized with grants and awards, but one of the most rewarding parts of the job is seeing other lab members discovering the joy of science (I wrote about my approach to mentorship recently [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-020-0256-6]).Three years into the faculty fellowship, I was able to transition to an Assistant Professor position in the same institute. However, this did not change my experience as a young woman in Indian science, and the implicit and explicit biases continued. In 2020, I accepted a fantastic opportunity to further my lab’s science as an EMBL Australia Group Leader at the Single Molecule Science Node at UNSW Sydney and made the move during a pandemic. My lab’s research focus is in understanding how stochastic and rare events pertaining to cytoskeleton and motor proteins give rise to complexity in intracellular organization. With this theme as the essence of our research, we ask specific questions about motor protein regulation to effect differential cellular trafficking, mitochondria-microtubule interactions, and their role in mitochondrial dynamics, and we aim to determine barcodes of global organelle positioning in health and disease.I have the privilege of being able-bodied, born in an upper middle-class family to college-educated parents who were extremely supportive of my choices. I have also inordinately benefitted from the fact that I was born to an Indian ‘upper caste’ family. I therefore had an undue head start in life. These were circumstances beyond my control and yet played a huge role in how my story turned out. I was embarrassingly ignorant of the rampant misogyny in academia until I had to contend with explicit and implicit gender-based biases myself when I started my independent research group in India. Women make up ∼40% of science PhDs awarded in India but represent only ∼13% of Indian academia (biaswatchindia.com), highlighting the stark gender biases at play in creating a leaky pipeline. While I tried my best to voice my discontent and affect changes to create an equitable environment within my department and institute, it was slow work. In 2020, when the pandemic hit and all conferences and meetings went virtual, conference posters advertised on social media made it immediately apparent just how much women were underrepresented in Indian STEM conferences. So, I teamed up with Shruti Muralidhar (now a scientist at Deep Genomics, Canada) to found BiasWatchIndia, an initiative to document women representation and combat gender-biased panels in Indian STEM conferences.BiasWatchIndia has been in existence for a little over a year now—we have achieved several milestones, but there’s still so much to do. “Manels” (conferences that feature only men) are still as rampant as they were when we first started—40% of all Indian STEM conferences are manels. And while we have just about started to tackle the underrepresentation of women in Indian STEM, we are conscious of the intersectionality of bias with gender, caste, ableism, and socioeconomic background and aim to understand how best we can advocate for all minorities.People who are in power in academia and who oppose equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives and instead preach merit and equality as the gold standard need to introspect, because when options and opportunities are offered without consideration to the millennia of oppression based on gender, race, and background, it is not promoting equality but upholding values that will continue to oppress underrepresented groups. Still, I am optimistic and hope to see real changes that will result in equity in academia in my lifetime.     

Pedagogy of the Black academic

I am just starting my career as a cancer biologist, but I have always been a Black man in America. This means that I have always inhabited a world that generally disregarded my existence in some form or another. It is June 17th, 2020 and protests have been happening for weeks since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The current state of America may be uneasy for some, but for many Americans, the looming threat of exclusion and violence has been an unwelcome companion since birth. This letter is not about a single person, but the Black academic’s experience of race inside and outside of the academy during a time of social upheaval. I have trained in a variety of institutions, big and small, and all the while acutely aware of the impact of my Blackness on my science. The intent of the following is to provoke the reader to reflect on how we as a nation can move toward radically positive change and not incremental adjustments to the status quo. The views expressed are my own and are the result of years of personal experience observing the anti-Black standard in America.

About the AuthorI am currently a cancer biologist at the University of Minnesota Medical School. My lab works to eliminate cancer health disparities in African Heritage communities and investigates the roles of lipids in modifying the immune response in tumors. This is what I do, but not all of who I am. I am also the eldest child of a mother, who managed to convince me that she had eyes in the back of her head (thank you, Mom; it kept me honest). I am a big brother, a husband, and a father. I also consider myself a fortunate Black man in America. I grew up in places where many of my friends did not live to adulthood. If they managed to survive past adolescence, it was usually their dreams that died prematurely. I was lucky to have survived and to continue chasing my dream of becoming a scientist. I never considered myself the fastest, strongest, or even smartest kid growing up, but I was the most determined. Determined, despite the lack of access to role models in science that looked like me or shared my life experience. Now my mission is to increase the number of dreams achieved and impact as many young minds as my time on this planet permits.As a Black scientist, I sometimes have to remind myself that I have never been immune to racism. Because as you spend thousands of hours delving into the microscopic world, the macroworld starts to fade into the background like white noise. And if you get good at it, you almost forget about the strange looks, the excessive questioning, or even the obligatory “tailing” in stores, on campus, or at home. But it is strange to realize how much you have grown accustomed to discrimination and the fact that you unconsciously prepare for it daily, before it ever shows its ugly head, like a prize fighter training months before a fight.This past month, amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the rest of the world has decided to say police are bad, and oh, by the way, Black lives matter too—as if the oppression of Black bodies was new, or as though the recent string of names added to the ever-growing list of innocent Black Americans killed by authorities is an atypical occurrence. Well sadly it is not, and it never has been in this country or any other place with colonial origins. That is the truth, and there is no other way to state it. America is a country built on and driven by racist ideology.So, as a Black American in an “essential” worker role (I am now working on COVID–19-related research), I have physically been at work daily during the pandemic, as the spirit of solidarity sweeps the globe. As much as I want to say this is progress, I find myself asking “why now, and not then?” Why didn’t this happen when Trayvon Martin was murdered; why didn’t this happen when Rodney King was beaten (Alvarez and Buckley, 2013; Mullen and Skitka, 2006)? Is it a sign of the end times, or is it just that racism/White supremacy has finally run its course?I have a theory about why we are now seeing a mass movement against discrimination and police brutality (a.k.a. state-sanctioned murder). My theory states that had it not been for COVID-19 and the nationwide shutdown of normal life, none of this protesting would even be feasible. Why do you ask? The simple answer is that some people with the financial means can normally find ways to distract themselves with various activities, some noble and some … not so much, whereas other folks are less able to disconnect from the drudgery of hand-to-mouth living. Leave it to a global health crisis to reprioritize everyone’s entire life in one fell swoop. Suddenly, people who had vacation plans are stuck at home, whereas people who were just making ends meet are now unable to make those ends meet anymore. The haves and the have-nots are now both in an altered reality. Does this make them equal now? No, but it does allow people to see who their real friends, allies, and enemies are. I suspect that it’s the pulling back of the curtain that has made many people ready to fight, not to mention it is also very likely that many folks, after experiencing weeks of cabin fever, just needed some way to let off all that pent-up energy.Before COVID-19 became a full-time concern, tensions in the United States were already high as the recent killings of unarmed Black Americans (Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery) had gone viral and cries for justice echoed from coast to coast (Lovan, 2020). Once the reality of the pandemic set in and shelter-in-place orders were issued nationally, the situation became a powder keg waiting for just the right moment. That moment happened in North Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. With the release of the video showing the killing of George Floyd, the entire country and much of the world had a reason to go on a “righteous rampage” that has seemed to get the results some thought impossible to achieve. It cannot be overstated how critical social media has been in displaying the oppression of Black Americans at the hands of authorities to the entire world.Now, several months into the protests, the possibility of a “new’’ new normal has people dreaming of singing Kumbaya in technicolor. Yet, as one of the few Black faculty on my campus, I still feel like people are watching me, but for a different reason now. As various reforms are broadcast across the university, the random wellness “check-ins” start creeping in, and the requests for feedback on “new initiatives’’ seem to be like a new flavor of spam in my inbox.Now, I do appreciate the fact that people are starting to notice the oppressive nature of not being White in today’s world (in particular being Black in America), but I have been doing this for a while now, and I am not sure if hashtagged initiatives are healthy for anyone. Plus, it’s kind of creepy watching all of these people jump on the social justice bandwagon, when they weren’t here 4 mo ago or 4 years ago. For many Black academics, it is not about being involved with something when it’s trending; it’s about being “about that life” when it is inconvenient as hell. Again, I do appreciate the fact that more people are willing to fight oppression, racism, and White supremacy (even if only digitally), but you will have to forgive me if I do not trust you just yet. I mean, you are just checking in during what could be the last leg of a marathon, and we’ve been running this whole damn time!Here is a short answer to every wellness check-in email that many of the Black academics I know have received in the last 2 mo: “we were never okay in the first place, but thanks for FINALLY asking!” We don’t need any more bias training, hashtags, or email check-ins. It was a nice start, but it too has become a part of the status quo. The work now and always has been the eradication of underrepresentation, hurtful socialization, and ridiculously skewed power dynamics, not just the awareness of the fact. I don’t have all the answers, but if real change is desired, I think we can first start by teaching history accurately to EVERYONE, no more whitewashing the reality of America’s story and ignoring the contributions of Black academics (and Black Americans in general). Second, stop being silent when you see or hear racism at work or home. If you do nothing when racism shows up, you ARE a racist! Third, the privileged class must relinquish their “privilege” once and for all. That means the powers that were inherited based on historical (and present day) theft and oppression have to dissipate, with the ultimate goal of power sharing. The country club atmosphere of academia and the “fit culture” must erode in favor of true meritocracy. The best person for the job and not “the person who won’t make me uncomfortable by making me see my own deeply held prejudices and fears.”Honestly, Black academics SHOULD not be charged with the task of fixing broken systems, along with protecting themselves and mentees, while working toward tenure. But if we (Black academics) are not driving the car, progress will likely go the wrong way again (getting rid of Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima does not correct the underlying pathology). Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed speaks to this in saying, “the violence of the oppressors prevents the oppressed from being fully human, the response of the latter to this violence is grounded in the desire to pursue the right to be human … the oppressed, fighting to be human, take away the oppressors’ power to dominate and suppress, they restore to the oppressors the humanity they had lost in the exercise of oppression.” (Friere, 1972, p. 56). This means that if we (Black academics) want to be treated as humans and as scholars, we must show you what that humanity looks like FIRST. Now the question is, are you willing to learn or are you going to co-opt this moment, this movement to make it into something that fits your preconceived notion of the acceptable levels of Blackness in the academy?