Location,location, location? No. Catalog number

Once you start to read this Editor’s Corner, you might wonder why I have devoted an entire article, albeit a short one, to this topic. Let me assure you there are reasons. First, I want to announce a new policy for the journal that will affect all research papers. Starting with all papers that are not currently in press, we will no longer be asking for geographical locations of research companies that follow the listing of a reagent. In Materials and Methods the authors typically refer to a reagent and then list the company and its location parenthetically. For example, “…p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO).” Instead, we will require catalog numbers. The reason is that it is now quite easy to find a company using the internet, and in fact you rarely need to know the location because it is rare that you would send a written order. On the other hand, knowing the name of the reagent is not always sufficient to narrow down the precise item. For example, if you search for “p-nitrophenyl phosphate” at the Sigma-Aldrich site, you get seven primary choices and it is not at all obvious which one to choose. When my lab uses p-nitrophenyl phosphate for the Pho8?60 assay, we use item N9389, which narrows it down to a precise reagent. Thus, we will start requiring papers to write “…p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma-Aldrich, N9389).

Second, I think this is actually a useful change, and one that many journals will start to institute once they see it being done here. The old style of listing the city and state is a relic that is no longer relevant. Furthermore, it is not even clear in the current global marketplace if this is particularly helpful. For example, if I am ordering an item from Roche Applied Science, why would anyone care where it is coming from? It is highly unlikely that a researcher in Germany or Japan is going to order from Roche Applied Science that happens to be based in Indianapolis, IN when there are much closer sites in Mannheim, Germany and Tokyo, Japan. So, do not be surprised when you start to see more and more journals adopting this approach, and remember that you saw it here first. Autophagy—the cutting edge.     

Genome-enabled exploration of microbial ecology and evolution in the sea: a rising tide lifts all boats

As a young bacteriologist just launching my career during the early days of the ‘microbial revolution’ in the 1980s, I was fortunate to participate in some early discoveries, and collaborate in the development of cross-disciplinary methods now commonly referred to as "metagenomics". My early scientific career focused on applying phylogenetic and genomic approaches to characterize ‘wild’ bacteria, archaea and viruses in their natural habitats, with an emphasis on marine systems. These central interests have not changed very much for me over the past three decades, but knowledge, methodological advances and new theoretical perspectives about the microbial world certainly have. In this invited ‘How we did it’ perspective, I trace some of the trajectories of my lab's collective efforts over the years, including phylogenetic surveys of microbial assemblages in marine plankton and sediments, development of microbial community gene- and genome-enabled surveys, and application of genome-guided, cultivation-independent functional characterization of novel enzymes, pathways and their relationships to in situ biogeochemistry. Throughout this short review, I attempt to acknowledge, all the mentors, students, postdocs and collaborators who enabled this research. Inevitably, a brief autobiographical review like this cannot be fully comprehensive, so sincere apologies to any of my great colleagues who are not explicitly mentioned herein. I salute you all as well!     

50 years a biomedical engineer remembering a long and fascinating journey

Looking back at one point of life appears as a nice exercise to round out and summarize. However, the objective should not be simply to tell a story; it must transmit a message to the young. To start with, two concepts are useful: Respect for others begins when you learn to laugh at yourself and, taken from an old saying, I did not want to be poor ... but money wouldn't make me rich. After elementary and high schools, during times of turmoil, I describe my engineering school years at the University of Buenos Aires and a working experience in an international telecommunications company. Significant events taught me a concept, rooted in another motto: Isn't this house nice? It is my house, and I love it very much. In 1960, I began my activities in the USA. A couple of bad decisions resulted in significant events for me teaching me an important truth: "Beware of golden promises; time is the most precious asset". Finally, in 1972, settled down in Tucumán until retirement in 2001, a long period of productive activity came about, not without difficulties and also stained by a dark political interval. Crises seem to characterize our generations in Argentina. Non-the-less, there were some real accomplishments: an undergraduate program in BME and a National BME Society (SABI) plus an archive of specialized published material. After spending time following retirement in Peru and Italy, my current activity came as unexpected dessert at the University of Buenos Aires, with a small research group, so offering the opportunity of transmitting what I still have available.     

In conversation with the Chief Editor

An interview with Facundo D Batista, The EMBO Journal new Editor‐in‐Chief.

An interview with Facundo D. Batista, The EMBO Journal new Chief Editor. Facundo D. Batista has shaped our understanding of the molecular and cellular biology of B‐cell activation. In 2016, he relocated his lab to Massachusetts General Hospital/M.I.T./Harvard’s Ragon Institute to explore the translational potential of two decades of basic research in B‐cell biology. The interview was conducted by Thiago Carvalho. Thiago Carvalho (TC): What inspired you to pursue a career in science? Facundo D Batista (FDB): I was very inspired by my undergraduate course on molecular biology at the University of Buenos Aires. The course was given for the first time, and we were taught the basic techniques of handling DNA, producing insulin, and so forth. Two professors in the course, Daniel Goldstein and Alberto Kornblihtt, really primed us to open our horizons and encouraged training in centers of excellence abroad. I did not speak any English at all, and applying to graduate school in the United States and doing the GRE was impossible for me. I would not have passed. Then, an opportunity to go to Italy and get experience in institutes that could provide me with better training came up. If I recall correctly, we were the first generation of Argentinian biology graduates—myself, Pablo Pomposiello, and many others—that left Argentina looking for a PhD. In general, people would try for a postdoc.I applied to a PhD program in Italy. I went with an open ticket for a year. If I had not passed the ICGEB/SISSA (Trieste) examination, I had three thousand dollars to travel around, and then I would go back to Argentina. I had never been in Europe before. So, for me it was an experience. What happened was that I was very lucky to be admitted in probably the first generation of this new institution, the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Italy. In three years, I finished my PhD, and then, to be honest, as an Argentinian in Europe, I did not have many postdoctoral funding opportunities either. TC: How did you move from Trieste to Cambridge’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology? FDB: I found Michael Neuberger’s laboratory to be very appealing, and I wrote to Michael. He replied to me, in a letter that I still keep, that—if I was able to obtain a fellowship—he would take me in his laboratory. A wonderful thing about EMBO was that it would recognize the country where you did your PhD when considering postdoctoral fellowship applications, giving me access to this important funding support. ¹ It was the very early days of diversity—the notion that people could be eligible for support based not only on their nationality, but also on their “scientific nationality”. It gave me a unique opportunity. TC: It was also an opportunity to meet another source of inspiration for you, César Milstein FDB: César was not well at the time, he had heart problems. But I met him, and I felt very close because Michael was working with César, and he worked next door. For me, walking in those corridors with César Milstein and several other Nobel Prize winners—you know, Aaron Klug and Max Perutz—it was a dream. I could not believe that you could have lunch with these wonderful people, and they would come and talk to you, not as Dr. Klug or Dr. Milstein, but they would be César, Aaron, and Max. That for me was totally mind‐changing, together with my relationship with Michael, whom I love. They completely changed my perspective on science. TC: What do you remember most about Michael Neuberger as a mentor? FDB: What was incredible about Michael was his clarity. You would present any biological problem to him, and he would crystallize in one sentence what the real question behind it was. He was amazing. Michael would enter into a state of thinking where he would stop looking at you and would start looking up at a wall and would start to concentrate for those 10, 20 minutes that you’d explain the problem. Then, he would come up with critical questions and he would be critical to the bones. I think that that is something that science has lost these days. I think that this notion of going deep into critically asking the right scientific questions has been lost as a tradition. It is something that I try to transmit to my postdocs and PhD students: Scientific criticism is not about personal or emotional evaluation. It is really about trying to nail down what the question is and how a project develops. I think that is what I remember most of Michael, his commitment to the people that worked with him and who surrounded him and that deep thinking and constant challenging about what is the next step. TC: In 2002, you started your laboratory at the London Research Institute FDB: I was at one stage considering staying at the LMB with my independent lab, and César and Michael were very supportive of that. But then came the opportunity to join the LRI—which at the time was still the ICRF. I was the last employee recruited (to the ICRF), and it was wonderful. The notion of changing environments again, changing colleagues. The LMB was not an immunology institute. It was a general research institute and the ICRF at that time was similar, with very little immunology. I have always valued the whole spectrum of biology from mathematical modeling to quantitative biology to biochemistry to technological inputs, to development, and so forth. TC: Your LRI laboratory revealed entirely new aspects of the molecular and cellular biology of B lymphocytes—one was the existence of organized membrane structures reminiscent of the immunological synapse first described in T cells that were crucial for activation. What are the implications of the immunological synapse for B‐cell function? FDB: It was a concept that was resisted by the B‐cell field. The notion at the time was that B cells would get activated by soluble antigens. But if you think about it, that does not make any sense. You will never reach a physiological concentration of a ligand that will allow you to engage a receptor in vivo at a low affinity. So in order to reach that concentration, you need to aggregate antigen on the surface of other cells first. And that makes the whole process much more efficient. It not only localizes the process into lymph nodes or spleens, but it also allows focusing the response into what the arrangement of a membrane is. I was not the first—the notion that antigens are on follicular dendritic cells was well‐established by early experiments. But I think our work transformed the field. A lot of laboratories have incorporated the notion that stimulating cells at the level of membranes changes the way that receptors perceive signals. This does not apply only to the B‐cell receptor, it applies to chemokines too, many of them are also coating the surface of other cells and that helps guide the signals that cells receive.I think that it is an important concept that is likely to be applicable to vaccines. There are several papers now showing that helping to aggregate antigens on the surface of macrophages or dendritic cells makes antigens more potent by driving them more efficiently into where they are used in follicles and lymph nodes. TC: What prompted your pivot to translational research? FDB: I had learned a lot about basic principles of B‐cell biology and antibody responses, but on model antigens. I felt at the time that translating that into humans and trying to understand how vaccines could be improved was an important step. I always like to recognize mentors or people who influenced me and one person who really influenced me in this thinking was Dennis Burton at Scripps. He was very early to incorporate into his HIV vaccine and antibody research people like me or Michelle Nussenzweig that were coming from basic B‐cell immunology to try to help to think about how vaccines can be improved. I decided to take a risk. I left a tenured, core‐funded position at the best institution in Europe to lead the Ragon Institute with Bruce Walker—I am the Associate Director and he is the Director—and brought my years of expertise at the ICGEB, LMB, LRI, and CRICK to a unique environment that is based on translational research. There is the incredible ecosystem of Harvard, MIT, and MGH, and the notion is to incorporate technologies and to incorporate immunology to tackle incredible challenges, like COVID‐19 is today. TC: Are there any major initiatives that you plan to focus on at The EMBO Journal? FDB: One of the things that I would really like to do is to involve the younger generations in the journal. I think that we have an opportunity for direct “translation”. I mean, EMBO has EMBO postdoctoral fellowships and EMBO young investigators, involving early career European scientists, but also scientists across the globe. We are discussing initiatives like, for example, inviting postdocs from different laboratories to present at the editorial meetings. The EMBO Journal has an open‐door policy in terms of people wanting to participate in the editorial meetings.I think that we have amazing scientists around the world that can really bring new views as to where the journal should be going. I feel strongly about that and about keeping a real sense of diversity in the journal, in terms of fields, in terms of gender, in terms of race, in getting people involved from Brazil, getting people involved from China, getting people involved from Japan, from across the globe. EMBO is no longer a European journal. EMBO is a journal whose office faces Europe, but it has a global outlook. TC: Early in their career, many researchers do not feel comfortable engaging with editors FDB: I sent one of my first papers as an independent P.I. to EMBO. That paper was editorially rejected. I replied to that rejection, saying that EMBO should stop publishing just biochemistry, and that they needed to appreciate the importance of quantitative cell biology. The paper was ultimately sent to review and accepted. What was also very positive was that a later review of the scope of The EMBO Journal came to a similar conclusion. That resulted in my appointment to the editorial advisory board of The EMBO Journal (I was not an EMBO member at the time). The positive message is that the journal very much welcomed receiving feedback. That was what made me like the journal. I felt that the journal was ready to listen, to change.This is not my journal. It is the community’s journal. I am just playing a role, putting in some time and effort. There are a lot of things that I do not see and other young people could see, and I am looking for inspiration there, to listen and translate those things into good policies for the journal. I think that this is important and I think that this is at the basis of what I want to be as a chief editor.     

From Chloroplasts to Chaperones: How One Thing Led to Another

Two lessons I have learned during my research career are the importance of following up unexpected observations and realizing that the most obvious interpretation of such observations can be rational but wrong. When you carry out an experiment there is usually an expectation that the result will fall within a range of predictable outcomes, and it is natural to feel pleased when this turns out to be the case. In my view this response is a mistake. What you should be hoping for is a puzzling result that was not anticipated since with persistence and luck further experiments may uncover something new. In this article I give a personal account of how studies of the synthesis of proteins by isolated intact chloroplasts from pea leaves eventually led to the discovery of the chaperonins and the formulation of the general concept of the molecular chaperone function that is now seen to be a fundamental aspect of how all cells work.     

Joan Heath interviews Suzanne Cory and Joan Steitz: a female perspective of science in the swinging ‘60s

Prompted by the occasion of International Women''s Day, Joan Heath and DMM reunited Professors Suzanne Cory and Joan Steitz via Zoom to discuss their extraordinary careers and joint experiences in science. They also delve into past and present challenges for women in science, and discuss the role of scientists in a post-pandemic world.

Suzanne Cory, Joan Steitz and Joan Heath (from left to right) As one of Australia''s most eminent molecular biologists, with a school in Melbourne bearing her name, Professor Suzanne Cory has been both Director of The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Australia (WEHI) and President of the Australian Academy of Science. She earned her PhD at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge, UK, with postdoctoral training at the University of Geneva. She continues her research at WEHI as an honorary distinguished research fellow, investigating the genetics of the immune system in the development of blood cancers and the effects of chemotherapeutic drugs on cancer cells.Joan Steitz – currently Sterling Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, and for 35 years the recipient of a Howard Hughes fellowship – is best known for her seminal work in RNA biology. She was the first female graduate student to join the laboratory of James Watson at Harvard University and proceeded with her postdoctoral training at the MRC LMB in Cambridge. Her pioneering research delved into the fundamental mechanisms of ribosome and messenger RNA interactions, as well as RNA splicing, heralding the phenomenon of alternative RNA splicing. A recipient of many awards and honours, she is also involved in international projects aimed at supporting women in science.Host Joan Heath heads a laboratory at WEHI in Australia. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Cambridge, followed by her PhD at the Strangeways Research Laboratory also in Cambridge, then just across the road from the MRC LMB. After postdoctoral positions in bone biology and osteoporosis research, Joan joined the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research where she became a laboratory head, and changed her focus to cancer research using zebrafish to identify genes that are indispensable for the rapid growth and proliferation of cells during development. She joined the WEHI in 2012. There she showed that the same developmental genes are also required by highly proliferative, difficult-to-treat cancers, including lung, liver and stomach cancer, paving the way for translational research targeting these genes in novel cancer therapies. Joan H: How long have you two known each other? Suzanne: I was calculating that this morning and I was astonished because it seems like only yesterday, but it has been 55 years since we met in Cambridge. It has been a voyage in science and a voyage in the world because we have always made a point to meet up in beautiful places and go hiking. That is how we''ve been able to renew our friendship over all these years. Joan H: Where were you when you first met? Joan S: We both were working at the MRC LMB in Cambridge, England. Suzanne was doing her PhD and I arrived slightly later for a postdoc.Suzanne: We had a pre-meeting in the sense that Joan, Jerry Adams (my future husband) and Tom Steitz (Joan''s husband), were all graduate students together in Harvard. So, when Joan and Tom came to Cambridge, it was natural that we would all start doing things together. And Joan and I ended up sharing a lab bench.Joan S: The reason that I did a postdoc in the mecca of X-ray crystallography was that I had married a crystallographer – and there was no other place that he could possibly go. They very much wanted to have my husband at the Cambridge MRC lab, but there wasn''t a clear plan for me. Francis Crick suggested that I do a literature project in the library, but I knew that theory was not my forte in comparison to experiments. I started talking to the many people working in the lab and found a project that no one wanted, because it was so challenging. But it was a very interesting problem, so I decided to take it on – and it turned out to be a great project.Joan H: That''s amazing. You were obviously determined to overturn other people''s expectations of you.Suzanne, even now, it''s extremely unusual for a young person to leave their home country to do their PhD. It''s still a brave thing to do but all those years ago it was really courageous. You told me that you ended up there because you wrote a simple letter, which was a complete shot in the dark.Suzanne: It certainly was. During my master''s degree at the University of Melbourne, I became more and more interested in doing science and decided I would do a PhD. But I had a counteracting desire to travel and see Europe. So I decided that I would do my PhD overseas to give myself the opportunity of travelling. I had fallen in love with DNA during my undergraduate studies. So, I wrote a letter to Francis Crick in Cambridge, and asked if he would take me on as a PhD student. Much to my amazement, I eventually got a letter back saying yes. I think that my professor of biochemistry might have also visited Cambridge while he was travelling and spoken up for me. However, I was still extraordinarily fortunate that Francis had agreed because there weren''t many PhD students in the LMB at that time. It made such a difference to my entire life. I look back on that letter and think, “How did you have the audacity to write that letter and aim to go to that laboratory?”. I think it was partly naivety.Joan H: That''s a lesson for everyone, to go for your dreams, and don''t assume people won''t take notice of you. It is more difficult now, when scientists receive hundreds of e-mail applications from prospective PhD students in their inbox. You would have written a letter with a stamp on it that probably took three weeks to arrive, but it just shows you that you should be audacious. Did you have a different experience to Joan when you arrived? Was there a proper project already lined up for you?Suzanne: I was interviewed by Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner, who were the joint directors of the department. They decided that I would work on the structure of the methionyl-tRNA that puts methionine into internal positions in polypeptides. After they described the project – which involved doing counter-current distribution fractionation of bulk tRNAs, in which I had no experience whatsoever – Sydney in his very characteristic monotone said, “Do you think you''re up to it?”. I sort of gulped to myself and said, “Yes, I think I could do that”. I then went to Brian Clark''s laboratory, who was going to be my PhD supervisor, and started the project. Like always in life, if you learn from people and just go from one day to the next, you actually get there in the end.Joan H: So, persistence was key. Were there many other women at the LMB at the time?Suzanne: I don''t remember any female scientists who had official senior positions. There were certainly some strong female scientists there, but I don''t think they were given the recognition or the status that they actually deserved.Joan S: Later, some were given more recognition, crystallographers in particular, but not so much the molecular biologists.Suzanne: I think, as women, we both pioneered in that department.Joan H: Given the fact that you both agreed to take on projects you had very little previous experience with and that the male supervisors thought you weren''t going to have the mettle to carry it through, once you were there, did you feel that you had to work the whole time? Or did you still manage to have lots of fun and partake in opportunities that Cambridge had to offer at the time?Joan S: We certainly partook in a lot of those things. My husband and I got interested in antique furniture, antique paintings, and used to scour the countryside for little antique shops. We saw lots of England, then a little bit of Scotland and Wales. It was wonderful. A real adventure.Suzanne: I worked really hard most of the time that I was in Cambridge, as the work was very exciting. But I would take holiday periods, camping and youth hostelling all over Europe with a girlfriend from Melbourne and later, travelling with Jerry. We also would go to London for the opera and looking for amazing clothes on Carnaby Street and Chelsea Road (this was the Beatles era, late 60s). Jerry once came back with a purple velvet suit, which was his prized possession for many years. There was lots of fun but also lots of work.Open in a separate windowJoan Steitz, Tom Steitz, Jerry Adams and Suzanne Cory (from left to right) in the Swiss Alps, 1970. Image courtesy of Mark Bretscher. This image in not reproduced under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. For permission to reproduce, contact the DMM Editorial office. Joan H: Can you remember the first moment in that part of your career that gave you the most pleasure? Joan S: I worked on a project for about a year, and it turned out that I was doing the wrong fractionation method to get the material that I needed to analyse. Then I had a conversation with Sydney Brenner telling him that I was going to give this one more try with a new method, and then I was going to give up. I remember Sydney saying, “Sometimes, like with a bad marriage, you have to give experiments one last try before you give them up.” Then I tried again, and it worked. This is often the case in science, that you try something new, that''s a little bit different, and it makes all the difference. Then you''re running.Suzanne: The same thing happened to me. I was labouring away on the counter current distribution machines fractionating methionine tRNA, with the goal of sequencing it by the laborious procedure recently published by Robert Holley. However, Fred Sanger, in the department upstairs, had invented a totally new method for sequencing using ³²P-labelled RNA. I desperately wanted to try this, so I managed to persuade my supervisor that we should change techniques. That change was key to my future because the approach was successful. I still remember to this day exactly where I was in Cambridge, walking on a Sunday afternoon, when the last piece of the puzzle dropped into place in my mind, and I had the entire sequence. In that moment, I was extremely joyful, because I knew I had my PhD and that I had succeeded. So that was my eureka moment.Joan H: Obviously, these were extremely productive years, and you''ve mentioned several Nobel Prize winners in your midst. It must have been the most inspiring environment, which I''m sure had a big impact on what you did next. By this stage in your career, were you already feeling ambitious or was it still your scientific curiosity that was driving your path?

“I expected that I would go back to the United States and be a research associate in some man''s lab […]. Then it turned out that people were more impressed than I thought and started offering me junior faculty jobs.”

Joan S: I had gotten a lot of recognition for having sequenced a piece of mRNA, using the same methods that Suzanne used to sequence tRNA. However, I had no expectations, because I had never seen a woman as a science professor, or head of a lab. I expected that I would go back to the United States and be a research associate in some man''s lab, and maybe they''d let me guide a graduate student. Then it turned out that people were more impressed than I thought and started offering me junior faculty jobs.My husband had already secured a junior faculty job in Berkeley before we even went to England, so we went back there after two years. My husband went to the chair of the department in Berkeley and put down letters on his desk of job offers that both of us had received for independent, junior faculty positions from several universities. The Chairman then said to Tom, “But all of our wives are research associates in our labs, and they love it”. This tore at my pride, as there had been a couple of universities that offered us both faculty jobs, and Berkeley was only offering one. So, we didn''t stay at Berkeley, and we came to Yale, which was wonderful.Suzanne: It''s really amazing to think that they gave you up. How foolish they were.Joan H: They''ve lived to regret it a million times over. Suzanne, at that point were you ready to climb this very difficult ladder?Suzanne: Like Joan, I didn''t have any expectations. For me, it was a matter of being able to continue discovering things in science. Jerry had already arranged to start a postdoc in Geneva. So, I applied for a postdoctoral fellowship, and obtained one. We went off together to Geneva to start our married life, and that was the beginning of us doing science together, which we''ve done ever since. I think without Jerry guiding me at that stage in my life, I would have probably drifted out of science. I don''t think I had the scientific confidence to ever think that I would be running a lab. For me, it was just continuing a voyage of discovery; and being lucky to end up in a wonderful scientific partnership and, through that partnership, my confidence grew over the years. Joan H: How many years after your postdoctoral training was it before you looked around your environment and had the confidence to think that you could be a lab or department head or could run an Institute? Joan S: I would say that confidence just grew. Tom and I were part of a departmental overhaul that involved hiring about six new people at Yale. We all stuck together, supported each other and were very collegial even though we worked in different areas. I think the collegial nature of the department in Yale helped me gain confidence. It was very scary at first because I didn''t know if I could write grants or direct people.Suzanne: Cambridge had an incredible influence, certainly over me, and I''m sure over Joan, Tom and Jerry, too. We looked around and saw all these amazing Nobel laureates, but also all these very ambitious, talented postdocs from around the world. I don''t think anyone thought about being the head of a department at that stage. We were simply striving to make discoveries and we gave each other mutual confidence, and stiff competition, too.The other thing that Cambridge gave us, was a new technology. For Joan and me, it was RNA sequencing. Being able to do that technology opened doors all around the world. I now always advise young people to go to the best place in the world to train in your chosen subject and acquire a new technology, because that will open the door to many opportunities in the future.Jerry and I made some excellent discoveries in Geneva, which were published in front-rank journals. Then it was time to move to full independence. I really wanted to go back to Australia but, as Jerry is an American, it was not at all obvious that he should take the big leap of moving to the bottom of the world and starting a lab there. I owe him a tremendous debt because he decided that he would take that risk.Earlier, whilst on our honeymoon, we had visited various labs in Australia. Although WEHI was an institute for immunology, a field we knew little about at that stage, it had the same atmosphere as the LMB in the sense that everyone was striving at the frontiers of science and competing with the rest of the world. We decided this was the only place in Australia that we would work at and that we would attempt to persuade the new director Gus Nossal that he needed molecular biologists. We had an interview with him in Switzerland and he offered us jobs as postdocs. Again, we were probably very naive and audacious but we told him we didn''t want to be postdocs – we wanted to run our own lab. And he agreed and we launched our fledgling lab together in 1971. What drove us was always discovery, rather than career ambitions.Joan H: You''ve both described these amazing sets of circumstances that were challenging but, nevertheless, very satisfying. However, a lot of things have since changed. What do you think are the main remaining barriers to women in science?Joan S: There is an important phenomenon called social identity threat, or stereotype threat, that I think still impedes women in proceeding in their careers. The phenomenon is described by cognitive psychologists as a reaction that all people experience if they feel that they are part of an undervalued minority. And so, by definition, since there are fewer women in science than there are men, women are being subjected to stereotype threat. Cognitive psychologists have studied the physiological manifestations of this, including increased heart rate and perspiration but, psychologically, they''ve also documented that cognitive learning and memory are impaired when one has these feelings.I first learned about this in 2007 and I looked back and realized why, for 30 years, when I''d been on committees as the only woman amongst ten men, I wouldn''t dare say anything – because I was frightened stiff. Men undergo this response, too, if they''re put into the situation of being undervalued. If you understand why you''re reacting the way you''re reacting and know that this is a normal human response, I think it helps you to overcome your own feelings of insecurity and allows you to go ahead. I always tell young women who I''m rooting for in science about this, because I want them to know that they will very likely end up feeling this way, and it''s a normal human response.

“One thing I sometimes get frustrated about is that we often need men to change things […] but what we really need are women in those high-level positions, so that they can be the champions of change.”

Joan H: There are other terms describing other relevant phenomena, such as unconscious bias, imposter syndrome and champions of change. One thing I really relate to is imposter syndrome. I''ve listened to webinars on this topic and they all reach a similar conclusion that we all feel the same. On the one hand, at the end of the webinar, you do feel somewhat elated to know that it''s not just you, and that it''s normal. But, on the other hand, it doesn''t really change things. It''s a recognition of what we feel, and we all get some help from that, but you really need opportunities to change things at a higher level. One thing I sometimes get frustrated about is that we often need men to change things, leading to this concept of male champions of change. I admire those men; but what we really need are women in those high-level positions, so that they can be the champions of change. Not having 50% of university departments and medical research institutes run by women still limits our full potential.Joan S: I certainly agree with you, Joan. It''s very important to have realistic role models. Suzanne being head of the WEHI for all those years has engendered all sorts of admiration.Joan H: During that period, Suzanne not only did fantastic science but our Institute doubled in size.It''s transformative when you have women making up 50% of people around the table. It''s no help just having a token female because that poor person''s not going to be able to change everything on her own. In American scientific institutions, are there any firm quotas for female scientists and other people that are underrepresented in science?Joan S: In recent years there has been a push in that direction. Sometimes it''s successful and sometimes it''s not. It is very different now compared to when there was no consciousness that this was unfair or that things could be better if we had real representation.Suzanne: I agree with both of you in everything that''s been said. While reflecting at this moment, what it says to me is that what''s really needed is societal change, and that we need to give courage to girls from the very earliest age. It should come naturally, they shouldn''t feel inferior, and others should not look at them as inferior. They should expect to have careers as well as families, be able to manage both and have somebody alongside them who helps them manage both.I think that affirmative action for women in science is necessary because the pace of change has been so slow. However, I also think quotas can be detrimental to the cause of women, in the sense that it''s then possible for people to say you only made it because there was a quota – which is very destructive. If I look back on our careers in science, it is clear that things have changed tremendously. Today there are more opportunities for women because many universities and institutes are bending over backwards to equalise things. The downside of this is that talented men may miss out on positions because of this policy and the pendulum could swing back.Joan H: The evidence shows that when more women are involved in things, those things go better. For instance, boards that have more women on them are more productive. Obviously, what you alluded to is there are lots of fantastic male scientists as well. The real issue here is there''s not enough funding to go round to support all the great men and women. But there are clearly enough good women around to be represented at the 50% level, without disproportionately disadvantaging male scientists.Joan S: Men and women are now operating on a more even playing field, which doesn''t mean that the men are missing out. They''re just in a more-competitive situation – as they should be. Joan H: Suzanne previously covered the specific advice she would give to young female researchers. Joan, do you have any other suggestions? Joan S: I encourage them to try lots of different things in science, and when they find something that really grabs them, then go for it and be persistent. We all know that science is very up and down. But if you keep pushing when you''re in a trough, it will always go back up again and you will succeed. That''s harder for a young person, who hasn''t experienced these troughs, to understand.Joan H: Yes, and the period when women scientists start having children is the hardest part. It''s still a choice that some women make, to take some years off and come back with a less ambitious plan for their career. Obviously, things like maternity leave payments and so on are improving but there''s no question that, in most circumstances, the research will slow down during that period.Suzanne: What I say to young women at that stage of their careers is that you have to be very focused, you must spend the time that you do have in a very focused manner, so that you can be the most productive you can be. But you have to be supported at home by your partner. If you''re both scientists it''s easier because you can appreciate why the other person is rushing into the lab late at night, for example, but for most people, that''s not true. So, what is really important is equal sharing of responsibilities from both partners when young families are around. And I think employers need to give both of those partners a longer time to achieve the kind of papers that they need to progress in their careers. That''s a period when it is much harder to be productive, and we need to continue to support people during that difficult phase of their careers because we''ve invested so much in them. They have so much to offer to science and to society, so to let them slip out at that stage is a great waste.Joan H: Let''s change tack a little bit and think about some of the broader challenges in science. What do you think the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us about the importance of clear scientific communication and real engagement with the community?Joan S: Whenever I talk to people about this, I very clearly make the point that it was decades of fundamental research that led to the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. If it hadn''t been for those fundamental discoveries in how cells and mRNA work, it would never have only taken 63 days from sequencing the virus to phase one clinical trials at Moderna. I try to point out to people that all the different discoveries coming in from different angles made that possible. I personally find it absolutely remarkable that all that knowledge could be harnessed, so very quickly. I''ve been doing fundamental research my entire life and I never expected to see it materialise in the way it has. It''s a wonderful reward. Joan H: Do you think this has resulted in the community appreciating scientists more? Joan S: I don''t think we''re far enough downstream to know that. In the US, there has been a congressional vote to abandon our maintenance of vigilance and preparedness for future pandemics – which seems ridiculous. Now we have all these procedures set up, all we have to do is maintain them for the next one. Whereas, if we just let go of these procedures, we''ll have to start over again for future pandemics. I guess we''re not good enough at communicating some of these things at this point.Joan H: Millions of people died from the virus and yet, if we hadn''t had the vaccines, the scale would have been even more horrific. If we were able to convey this information effectively to the public, then, hopefully, people would recognise that – as well as spending a fixed percentage of the gross domestic product on defence, for example – we should spend at least the same amount on science. Not only for pandemics but for tackling climate change and other pressing issues. I like to think this is an auspicious time but I don''t know whether we are really taking advantage of it.Suzanne: The pandemic has brought science and scientists to the forefront, and there has been a period of great respect for scientists having developed the vaccine. It''s an absolute miracle that it was done so fast and effectively. We''re very fortunate but, as Joan said, that was not luck. It was through investment in basic science for decades. We have to keep conveying this message, to our politicians in particular, so that they will keep supporting all kinds of scientists, because we never know what''s around the corner.Joan H: Certainly, people like Anthony Fauci in the US and Catherine Bennett in Melbourne, spoke eloquently and had a real talent for communicating things clearly and in a nutshell. That''s not something we''re all good at and it''s not something that is easy to train into people either. I think we all need to try to capture the attention of the community at large, by speaking plainly. I don''t think people understand that scientists are underfunded and could do so much more if funding was more generous.

“All I can say to young people is, if you really love science and have a passion for it, keep trying – because you will succeed if you put your whole heart and soul into this career path.”

Suzanne: I think the general public has no appreciation of how tenuous the life of a scientist can be, and how we are losing so many great minds entering the field because young people just finishing their PhDs look with dismay at how hard it is to support a career in science and get enough funding. There''s a tremendous waste of talent. All I can say to young people is, if you really love science and have a passion for it, keep trying – because you will succeed if you put your whole heart and soul into this career path.Joan H: This has been an absolutely fantastic discussion and it''s such a delight to talk to women who, after all these years, are still as passionate as ever and are pursuing their scientific subjects with the same vigour as they have all along.Suzanne: It''s been wonderful to talk with you, Joan, and I hope that we see each other soon, no matter what continent. And thank you, Joan Heath for getting us together and giving us this opportunity.     

Walking between academia and industry to find successful solutions to biomedical challenges: an interview with Geoffrey Smith

Geoffrey W. Smith is currently the Managing Director of Mars Ventures. He actually started his studies with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Doctorate in Law but then, in part by chance and in part by following in his family footsteps, he stepped into the healthcare and biotech field. Since then, he has successfully contributed to the birth of a number of healthcare companies and has also held academic positions at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and at The Rockefeller University in New York, teaching about the interface between science and business. During 2014 he served as Senior Editor on Disease Models & Mechanisms, bringing to the editorial team his valuable experience in drug development and discovery. In this interview, Geoff talks to Ross Cagan, Editor-in-Chief of Disease Models & Mechanisms, about how he developed his incredibly varied career, sharing his views about industry, academia and science publishing, and discussing how academia and industry can fruitfully meet to advance bioscience, train the scientists and stakeholders of the future, and drive the successful discovery of new therapeutics to treat human disease.Geoffrey W. Smith was born in 1965. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Williams College in Williamstown, MA. After a stint as a Research Associate at Harvard Business School, he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Following a federal court clerkship and first job experiences in law, he joined a healthcare services start-up named Advanced Health as one of its first employees. Geoff then co-founded various healthcare and technology companies, including Interbind and Ascent Biomedical Ventures, and is still a Managing Partner at the latter. In 2012, he joined the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, first as Professor in the Department of Population Health Science And Policy, and then as Director and co-founder of the Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship PhD program. Until December 2014, he was a Senior Editor at Disease Models & Mechanisms. Geoff is now Managing Director of Mars Ventures.Let''s start with your background. You have a Bachelor of Arts degree and a law degree. How is it exactly that you ended up working in biotech and pharma?My career path has been anything other than linear. I was actually pursuing my legal career when two entrepreneurs turned up at the law firm I was working for with an idea for a new technology-based company focused on more effectively managing healthcare services. I was a new associate without much to do, so I got assigned to work with the start-up and after about a year they asked me to come and join the company, Advanced Health. I had grown up in a very medically oriented family – my father was a medical school professor, my older sister was a PhD, and my younger sister is a medical doctor – and so to a certain extent joining a start-up in the healthcare space was a bit like joining the family business.We had a fair amount of success with that company. A little less than 2 years after I joined it, we had a successful initial public offering, and that started me down the road of participating in the start-up environment around healthcare.It sounds like it was not a surprising path for you. Which key people influenced you?Actually, it is somewhat surprising in that I had really prepared for and expected a career in law. Certainly, the work I did in law school and the first jobs I had after that started me on a different career. I was really focused on international relations and international law. The twist was that I got brought back into the healthcare arena, and ultimately the biotech arena, by a serendipitous connection – one of the entrepreneurs who started Advanced Health had trained at Brigham Women''s Hospital where my father was the Chief of Cardiology. It was through this connection that I became more than just an associate drafting legal documents and really began to build a close relationship with the founders, which ultimately led to me joining that business. This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether. In my case, these particular relationships stemmed from my father, who clearly had an enormous influence on me. He was both a practising clinician and a basic researcher, studying basic biology related to the function of sodium and potassium in the heart, but he also did applied research. He helped develop a radioimmunoassay test to measure digitalis levels in the blood and ultimately was involved in developing a drug called Digibind, an antidote to digitalis toxicity, which was one of the first drugs to use antigen-binding fragments [Fab] as the basis for a drug. Watching him manage these different activities in his career had a big influence on me.

“This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether”

I think that each of my sisters – as I said, one of whom went down a PhD route and one of whom went down a medical training route – had a big influence on me, as well. Watching the challenges that they had to face in those areas in some ways pushed me to go off towards law school and take a different path. It also brought me back to one of the aspects that I think is the most rewarding in the bioscience field, which is that you can have a profound impact on a large number of people through your efforts, whether they be purely research-based, academic-based or commercially-based.One of the things I was constantly impressed by is that you always seem to have a good feel for the health field and the biology field. Is this because it is something of a family business?I think so. Growing up at my dinner table, I was just privileged to get to meet and interact with a lot of incredibly successful clinicians and researchers. For me those were comfortable conversations: these were friends and so there was a comfort level being involved in that environment. I didn''t feel a lot of intimidation from it, which I think sometimes people who come from the outside do.One of the aspects I really like about the bioscience field is the impact of ideas. Success is really about one''s ideas and ability to execute them, and that was very appealing to me. It wasn''t about how much money you had or where you went to school, it was really about the ability to think deeply about a problem or a potential advancement and figure out a way to find a way forward. It is also a very people-driven process because it is not only about thinking deeply yourself but also about thinking deeply with those in your field or adjacent to your field. Lots of different personality types can succeed in this field, but I think it is certainly easier for people who have an affinity for sitting with people and thinking about a common area of interest.To that point, you actually have walked between business and scientists. What do you see is the difference? Some of the priorities are obvious, but what are the differences in terms of what motivates people in the two? Are the personalities that you come across different between the basic science world, the translating science world and the business world?I don''t think the personalities are particularly different. I think you find introverts and extroverts and everything in between in each of these areas. I am not sure that personality is necessarily a good predictor of success. I think it''s a question of what toolset you are most comfortable using to get at a problem, and where in the lifespan of a problem you''re interested in working.For example, scientists in academia very often are interested in working at an early stage of a problem. They understand something fairly basic about a process or something earlier in the understanding of a field. People who gravitate towards industry, instead, are more excited about working on the later part of a process, so, rather than trying to understand what the fundamental working mechanism is, they want to understand how to work that mechanism in a way that is predictable and repeatable.Obviously people in the commercial realm are often highly influenced by money, but even that I don''t think is really particularly the differentiator. There are plenty of academics who are driven by money as well. I really think it has much more to do with where on the spectrum of understanding one is interested in working. Industry is geared to solving practical problems and, if a lot is understood about a problem, to getting down to the ability to repeatedly and safely intervene, whereas academia really lends itself more towards understanding the front end of a problem or of an unknown mechanism to understand it first and at a more basic level.What about working in teams versus individually? Do you see a difference there?I think that has changed over time. I think it is very hard in academia today to be the brilliant solo investigator. I''m not saying it''s impossible but, considering the increasing size of the data sets one is working with, the statistical methods one has to use, the complexity of different fields overlapping with each other, it''s just very hard to handle all the necessary aspects of modern science as an individual. Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective. The difference may be that, in academia, often the teams are teams of collaborators (meaning they have influence but not necessarily power over all people participating in the team) who may work for different institutions, whereas, more commonly in industry, teams are working within a single corporate structure. In industry more often there are hierarchical relationships, which may allow for more directive behavior. Again, I''m not sure I would draw as much distinction between team or not team and between industry and academia, but I might draw somewhat of a distinction between how those teams function and how one manages a team. I think they are a bit different between the two realms.

“Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective”

Let''s turn to Disease Models & Mechanisms [DMM], where you have been a Senior Editor. What did your experience at DMM teach you about science publishing that perhaps you hadn''t thought about, and has it made you think more deeply about what goes into a good scientific piece of work? What were some of the surprises?Watching the detailed process that is necessary to take a piece from an initial submission through to a published article gave me comfort and respect for the level of diligence and the level of attention that the reviewers brought to the vast majority of the pieces. It gave me a good feeling that the science community can be a strong self-reinforcing organization that takes its responsibility to heart and only publishes the best of the work available. I think that was very reassuring.An interesting question for me was: is there a different function that the publication process could play in helping to galvanize new ideas or new interactions among different fields? That seemed to be challenging because people don''t want to rush out there without their ideas and data being fully thought-out and fully vetted. But still, somewhere in my mind is this notion that there should be an option in the publishing world to play a little bit earlier in the generation of new ideas.Do you mean journals having an earlier relationship – earlier in the experimental process with a laboratory – to work with them to provide advice?I don''t know if it''s to provide advice. One of the things I was struck by at DMM is that there are these different siloed research communities – for example, the fly and the fish communities – in which interactions and relationships in the individual fields are so well established and routinized. And the outcome from a publishing standpoint is still the canonical academic paper that has been relatively unchanged over a long period of time. Yet, we have had these tremendous changes in information and communication technology such that the manner of knowledge production and the methods of communicating in other parts of society have changed dramatically. It feels like there hasn''t been nearly as big a concomitant communication change in the biomedical sciences, and so the silos and the standard paper remain the way things are done.The publication process, because of its preciseness, can take quite a long time, so the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner. If you look at an area like maths, for example, and their pre-print servers, there is more of a notion of putting ideas out in the community that acts as a kind of peer-review process and a way to get the community interacting on new ideas early. That doesn''t seem to get a lot of attention in the life sciences area. It seems to me that even journals like the PLOS journals that are pushing towards a more open world of communication are still ending up being pulled back into the canonical paper form to communicate.

“…the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner”

I guess one of the issues on the biology side is that there is a real emphasis on trying to get your paper into the most prestigious journal, so people don''t want to drop that paper until it is as far along as possible to aim at high-impact journals.That of course becomes a self-reinforcing system. If the yardstick used in the life sciences industry is publication in high-impact-rated journals, then you are going to get that behavior. But if you''re interested in the generation of new knowledge and in moving your field forwards, it is at least plausible that publishing in a quicker fashion or with at least some outlet to move more creative ideas ahead would be attractive.There are clearly challenges to that. But I do think it''s remarkable that if you look at almost every other media area there has been a huge amount of change since the advent of the internet era, but there really has been very limited change around life sciences publishing. It''s been surprisingly conservative to me. I am wishing there would be more experimentation to find other ways to communicate information sooner and in a way that could spur more creativity.Of course, when you tie publishing back to industry, for competitive and intellectual property protection reasons, industry tends to not really want to get out in the front with its most interesting work too early. I think that a lot of things being published out of industry are not the most interesting stuff that is happening. But again it seems to me that another area that science publishing should be thinking about is how they could come up with other solutions that might provide for a more creative interaction between publishing and industry.Talking about old models versus new models, let''s move to issues of training. Another area that you''ve been impressive at is the training of scientists. You''ve had your hand in creating a new PhD track at Mount Sinai called Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship [DTE]. What is your view about how we train scientists, what we''re doing better these days and what you would like to see being done better to train them?It seemed to me that there was a remarkably small amount of experimentation in academia around thinking about how to train biomedical PhDs, and that academia had missed the opportunity to provide a better set of tools to PhDs to allow them to be effective across a wider range of potential career outcomes. The majority of biomedical PhDs are not ending up in tenure-track faculty positions but rather in the ‘alternative career track’. It seemed to be disingenuous to train them solely for the academic track if in reality the majority were going to some other career track.So what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively.

“…what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively”

This meant that our students had to be rigorously trained as scientists, but this was an ‘and’ opportunity and not an ‘or’ opportunity. In addition to being trained as excellent basics scientists, we wanted to give them some training in how engineers think about problems, how designers approach issues, what tools those people use and how that impacts how they try to solve a problem. Hopefully over time this would produce students that are better suited for interacting and influencing other parts of society – be it industry, government or policy – and better positioned to compete in what is a very competitive job market.What were some of the things you did in the DTE training to get at this?We really tried to teach theory in the context of real problems. Virtually all the classes of the DTE curriculum were problem-driven. We created a class that we called ‘The Q.E.D. Project’ that followed along from efforts at Stanford and elsewhere to teach students how to identify an unmet need. We then asked them to form a team to address the unmet need, and then helped them understand how to build a prototype to address that need. Along the way, we also talked about what kind of roles people in their team need to play. Should your team be very diverse or very deep in a given area? How do we integrate people who have different cultural backgrounds or how do we integrate medical students with PhD students? We brought in a lot of people out of the non-academic environment who were practitioners and experts in their various areas and we tried to get students to think about the full range of stakeholders they would have to engage with to bring a solution to bear.We did not want to spend a lot of time lecturing the students in a purely didactic way. We wanted to engage them in a process where they were solving important problems as part of the class. Whether that was a class on modelling or an engineering-focused class, or how to think about scientific problems, the core of DTE was built around getting the students to grapple with a real world problem and let all the learning hang off that.How did the students respond to that? Do you think you were successful?Based on the number of students signing up to take the courses and the student evaluations after the classes were over, I think we really struck a chord. I wouldn''t say it was necessarily the right answer for every student but I think there is clearly a group of students for whom this is a really effective and motivating approach.Let''s now move to drug discovery and development – the focus of the new online Special Collection from DMM. What would you say are some of the most urgent challenges in drug development that you have seen?I think one of the most urgent challenges is to begin to break free of some of our ‘old’ ways of thinking and take advantage of new scientific insights. For example, if you look at the traditional organization in a medical school environment, they are centered around departments devoted to organs (liver, heart, kidney). I think our increasing scientific understanding is that there are disease processes that may impact multiple organ systems but ultimately it is understanding the process, and drugging the process, that becomes important and not drugging the organ.I think that moving towards a process-oriented understanding of what common mechanisms are implicated in a given disease state or therapeutic challenge will help us be a little more creative and a little bit more interdisciplinary in how we think about these challenges.One of the difficulties with those new approaches is that pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions have not had a great track record of working together. Do you think that''s true? And why do you think it''s been so difficult to move ideas from the bench to the clinics?I think this is complicated. If you take the academic researchers'' point of view, their early identification of a problem and early identification of a potential solution feels like they have moved the ball very far forward towards the end solution. If you take industry''s point of view, the identification of the target or even the identification of a potential chemical compound is really just barely beginning to get to the starting line; the bulk of the time and the bulk of the dollars that will ultimately be needed to create a product come after the academic work and these will be spent by industry. I think that this differing point of view around where and how value is created has a lot to do with many of the challenges that arise when academia and industry are speaking to each other.Is it important to bridge this gap or is everybody playing their role?I think there''s an opportunity for academia to continue in its current role but to carry the potential solution further. I think in certain areas the access to tools and to patients allows academics to maybe carry projects further and closer to ‘proof of concept’ than they did historically, and that will continue to add value to the academic institution. That would ultimately help to bridge this gap because if you''ve taken something closer to proof of concept while still within the academic institution, you have created more value, you are able to engage with industry differently, and maybe the value perception gap is closed somewhat.What industry is really good at is organizing and managing late-stage research and clinical trials in an effective manner, and what academia is really good at is understanding basic questions, finding targets and sometimes finding early chemical compounds. Again, I think that the perception in academia of where value has been created is in part related to the fact that many academics haven''t been given the exposure or the training to actually understand the full breadth of the drug-development process. While they may have a general sense of it – we have all seen the same diagrams showing the steps and the funnel narrowing down from a million compounds to something getting onto the market – only those with real exposure to the work in industry understand it at a visceral or experiential level. One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development. Obviously, all the trained scientists on the industry side have been through academia because they had to go through it to get their PhDs, and thus they understand the academic side of the house pretty well. I really think the challenge is getting to people who have spent their whole career in academia to have a better understanding of what the drivers are on the industry side.

“One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development”

Between target identification and clinical trials of course there is another piece. At what point does the researcher in academia put down his pipette, walk out and start a biotech company? Should that happen?That''s a fraught question because I think it is an enormous undertaking to start a biotechnology company. Fundraising, intellectual property, regulatory affairs, company management – there are a whole number of disciplines that biotech companies have to take on. It is very rare that an academic scientist is going to have the training, the time and the motivation to do all of those things while also continuing to pursue their academic career in a very challenging funding environment. I think it comes back to this point that we were talking about with teams. I think it is really important for a scientist who is excited about their work and thinks it may be the basis of a company to go out and begin to form a team that is going to increase the likelihood of success. They have to accept the fact that science is a critical component, but it is just a component, and many different disciplines along with many different people are needed to make a successful company. If a scientist can bring that sort of collaborative view point and is open to working closely with an intellectual property attorney, with a business development person and with whomever their funding source is, that will increase their likelihood of success. They have to do it with a certain amount of humility, which is to say that it isn''t just going to be the science that drives the success: all the given pieces have to come together to be successful.You''ve watched a lot of technology coming through, including at your new position at Mars. Which technology excites you?We all have to pay a lot of attention to CRISPR and the gene-editing technologies. There is certainly a number of intellectual property issues that have to get sorted out but that''s clearly an area that will have a huge impact not just on human health but on animal health and plant health as well.The other area I''ve been thinking a lot about lately is the microbiome. As sequencing technology has altered in cost and time, we have begun to be able to explore the microbiome in a way that historically was not possible. And it feels like we are moving towards a tipping point where the explosion of understanding is going to open up a lot of interesting opportunities for us to intervene. Whether that''s through traditional drug modalities or through altered nutrition or through changing the microbial community in soil to produce crops that have higher nutrient value or other approaches, I think that''s another broad area that seems poised to begin to offer really interesting results.Were you surprised that a company like Mars, which has not been a basic research company at all, is now giving you an opportunity to build something that is much more research-orientated?The reality of Mars is that they have actually had a very deep fundamental research program for a number of years. They got involved in the sequencing of the cacao genome and contributed it to the public domain, and they are now also involved in the sequencing of the genomes of a large number of orphan crops in Africa. So they have been very active in their research both in the company and in collaboration with academic scientists around the world. The nature of the company has meant that the work is perhaps not as obvious as others, but it is a remarkably science-driven company in much of what it does.You have done a myriad of things. What are the one or two things that you are most proud of?I am most proud of my efforts to keep a hand in both the commercial and the academic world. It certainly has not been easy but I have received enormous satisfaction from the opportunity to work with bright students at each of the schools I have had the opportunity to teach at. I am not sure there is anything more satisfying than the opportunity to work with students and feel you have helped them towards their goals.At the same time, I think I''ve been effective in doing that because I have managed to keep an active role in the applied world. In some ways, my greatest achievement has been finding a way to balance those two interests in a way that seems to have worked for the various organizations I''ve been affiliated with.How do you relax away from work? Do you have a family?I am married. My wife is a securities litigator so has a very active career of her own. We have two children, one in high school and one in middle school. I''ve had the privilege to coach both of them on their various soccer teams since they were each about 4 years old so that''s been a lot of fun.The other thing that many people will not find relaxing – but for some reason my family does – has been taking backcountry ski trips annually for a number of years. Worrying about navigating through the snow and finding shelter before darkness falls has a way of clearing the mind.     

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.     

Coming to terms with heritability

The complex mechanisms of heredity are little appreciated by non-specialists, in some measure, because of misunderstandings that are perpetuated when words used for technical terms have other, more widely understood, folk meanings. When a word has both technical and folk meanings, it is the responsibility of the specialist to avoid promoting confusion by either using extremely cautious and precise language when using the term or, in cases when confusion is inevitable, abandoning the term in favor of one without a widely understood folk meaning. The study of heredity is beset by such confusion, and the term heritability appears to be at the heart of some of the confusion. In this article, I discuss both the technical and folk meanings of heritability and examine the bridge between them. By continuing to use the term heritability, we risk promulgating serious misunderstanding about the workings of heredity, therefore I suggest selectability as an alternative term to avoid such pitfalls. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Aquaporin Water Channels

Thank you very much. I am humbled, I am delighted; I am honored. This is every scientist’s dream: to give the Nobel Lecture in Stockholm. But I would not be honest if I did not tell you that I am having a little anxiety being on this platform. I have lectured a number of times in Sweden, and I thought I would share with you some events preceding a special lecture that I gave here a few years ago. Arriving at Arlanda Airport, I waited in line at the Pass Control behind a group of businessmen in suits with briefcases. I heard the first in line asked by the control officer to state the purpose of his visit to Sweden. When the man replied “business,” the officer approved and stamped his passport. One at a time, each stepped forward and was asked the same thing; each answered “business” and was approved. Eventually it was my turn, and I was dressed in rumpled clothes after spending the night in the Economy Minus section of an SAS jetliner. The officer asked me the purpose of my visit, and I said “I am here to give the von Euler Lecture at Karolinska Institute.” The officer immediately looked up, stared at me, and asked, “Are you nervous?” At that point I became intensely nervous and said “Yes, I am a little nervous.” The officer looked up again and stated “Well, you should be!“ So if the lecturers look a little nervous, the problem is at Arlanda.     

The golden age of biochemical research in photosynthesis

The perspectives and enthusiasms recorded in this review describe the events I witnessed and, in small ways, contributed to. Two great rewards emerged from my experiences – the pleasure of doing experiments and the great wealth of friendships with students and colleagues. As a graduate student, phenomena appeared at the bench before me which clarified the coupling of electron transport to ATP synthesis. My first PhD graduate student measured concentrations of pyridine nucleotides in chloroplasts and his results have been often confirmed and well used. All of the many graduate students who followed contributed to our understanding of photosynthesis. I have taken much pleasure from documenting the details of photosynthetic phosphorylation and electron transport in cyanobacteria. Studies of the `c' type cytochromes in these organisms continue to fascinate me. My experiences in government in its efforts to promote research are unusual, perhaps unique. A rare event outside the laboratory – a natural bloom of cyanobacteria – stimulated new thoughts and special opportunities for laboratory science. Photosynthesis seems magisterial in its shaping of our planet and its biology and in the details of its cleverness that were revealed in the time of my witness. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Finding a niche

Although I always knew I wanted to be a scientist, I didn't know I would become a cell biologist. Events in life that you would never have predicted can greatly impact your career trajectory. I have learned to let those events take me in new directions. Following a desire to investigate an understudied area of cell biology, I have found a niche. In this area, my lab is poised to contribute significantly toward understanding the fundamental molecular mechanisms underlying polarized plant cell growth.     

How we do business (or,why does it take other journals so long to review your paper?)

Have you ever wondered why it takes so long to get comments back from reviewers at some journals? After all, how long should it take to review a paper? I suspect most of us have asked this question at one time or another. While recently contemplating this question I thought it was time to tell you a little about how we run Autophagy, and at the same time compare it to the practices at some other journals where I have, on occasion (notably before the start of Autophagy), sent my own papers.     

A letter from Professor Boysen Jensen to Professor Monsi, September 1955

Prof. P. Boysen Jensen Raadmandsgade 49 KøbenhavnN. 24 September 1955 Professor Masami Monsi Dear colleague Please allow me to reply in German. In this language, it iseasiest for me to find the right expressions. I would like to cordially thank you for your kind letter, andalso for the reprints, which I have read with great interest. Of course I am very pleased to hear that my Japanese colleagueswant to continue my investigations on productivity. I myselfhave     

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

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

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

A new Bush-Shrike from Angola

M y friend Professor Erwin Stresemann, of Berlin, has generously asked me to describe this very beautiful new Bush-Shrike, thus securing the type for the British Museum, which, had he felt so disposed, could well have fallen to his lot to name. The specimen which I so designate, together with three others, two males and two females in all, reached the British Museum recently in the first batch of a collection which is being made in Angola on behalf of the British Museum by Herr R. H. Braun.     

Public Intellectuals and Biotech Stocks

The stock market is a platform for the transfer of capital from all varieties of clever and avaricious creatures...mega-institutions, fools, ciphers and layabouts lucky enough to be heirs to fortunes...to those who need it to enable productive work.

Stock markets have been so exhaustively analyzed that it is inconceivable that you will find anything new here. Yet I'll take a stab at it: I am interested to know if bioscientists, whose opinions of technologies that drive biotech companies are informed by deep knowledge and analytical capabilities, might have an edge in stock picking. To find out about this, I propose an experiment.

Landes Bioscience will fund a biotech investment account. Investment decisions will be made solely by me with the advise of the stock market equivalent of the bioscience College of Cardinals [bCoC]: simply the first 20 bioscientists who sign on. Here are the terms of the experiment.

* The fund will start out with $20,000.

* The duration of the fund will be five years.

* When the fund ceases operation, whatever assets are in it will be disbursed equally to the bCoC.

* Stock decisions of the fund will be published regularly in Cell Cycle.

* The identity of the bCoC will not be disclosed.

Few things in life are quite as gratifying as living well, especially if it is managed off the ideas and effort of others. Clearly, this is what investing capital is all about, and it is a particularly attractive pursuit when investing someone else's money.

I like the idea of public intellectuals at the interface between science and commerce. This is the call for 20 bioscientists throughout the world to join me in that space.

Ronald G. Landes

rgl@eurekah.com