|
What was your path, in terms of education, from initial interest in science to the present?
We are a family of medical doctors. But I found myself more interested in basic research. My brother is actually an M.D., but he's mostly working in the lab. In Germany that's quite a distinction- you don't go back and forth as much as you do here. If you're more interested in the research side you do biology and not medicine- and that's what I did. I had always had an interest in nature, an interest in plants- so those were the early roots. When my father finally asked me what I wanted to do I said 'biology.'
I wanted to discover my specific interest later. When I started biology it was pretty clear with botany it's pretty hard finding jobs- at least in Germany, probably here too. It was a big time for molecular biology- so that's what I did. I specialized very early on in Yeast, which is sort of a plant. It was a eukaryote, and that was beginning to look very interesting at the time. Prokaryotes weren't as attractive. There was a lot of focus on eukaryotes and on models like yeast. That's what I worked with in Frankfurt- on yeast, and on DNA repair, which I found very fascinating. So I stayed with it until now. It's a very narrow career.
I went to the states right after receiving my Ph.D.- I left three days later for the U.S. It was, at that time, the thing to do. You go for two years to the states -I got a stipend from Germany at that time- and then you come back and get a better job. In my case, I stayed. And that happens to a lot of people. I guess if you don't have really deep roots to your home country, that can happen. I like it here very much and I'm planning on staying.
What didn't you like about your own education?
The system [in Germany], first of all, is different from here. You get a very broad education and specialize later. They don't let you in a lab until very late in your education. That's something I would change; more hands-on experience early on. That's better here. On the other hand, I like a broad overview of many fields- that stays with you for a long time. In Frankfurt, you do an exam as a Ph.D. student, you didn't do a defense. Now you do a defense- but at that time, you did an exam in three areas, and I did microbiology, biochemistry, and botany. So even as a Ph.D. candidate, you're supposed to know details of photosynthesis, even though you haven't worked on that for five or six years. (laughs)
But that's not that bad, really. I don't have many complaints about the system. I would advocate a mix of the German and American educational systems.
What other interests do you have?
In my case, classical music, opera. Within biology I did read a lot of evolution, a lot of philosophy. And that was actually sparked during my graduate education. So, for instance, we had a seminar on philosophical problems in biology, which was taught by a professor in biology and a professor in philosophy, and it was open to tudents in both biology and philosophy. It was an experiment at that time, and we met on week-ends, all Saturday. And that stayed with me for a long time, and I kept reading texts on evolution... there are a few major areas of overlap, and I stayed interested in that.
What do you currently teach?
I haven't been here for that long, so it's only three years. So there are still some shifts and experiments in what I'm teaching. I'm involved in my department's effort on basic cancer biology, so I teach in that course, and graduate students and residents in radiation oncology. And there I teach cell-cycle regulation, dna repair, radiation biology. Not necessarily focused on Yeast. I teach a class on cell cycle explored with yeast specifically, and this year I have taught a class on mutagenesis. So that's still a bit flexible- graduate programs see where they can use me. I'm pretty much an institution in the cancer biology course.
What's your philosophy of teaching?
Just presenting the facts won't work. So you have to always give an idea of how this was accomplished. So you have to give the experimental background. The historical background helps. The students have to be able to design their own experiments, to see how conclusions have been drawn from experiments, and perhaps ask their own questions about how to go on from what we already know. Always it must, to a certain extent, fascinate them. They must get to a stage where they want to go to the next t level and do their own experiments. You get at least a little bit of a sense of whether or not you've accomplished at least a little of that by the questions they ask.
It always helps to point out the problems which remain, and which are still being addressed.
I must show experiments; what has fascinated researchers, because it might fascinate the students, too; how the questions have been addressed- what were the surprises, what were the problems, and how have they been solved. So you get the student in the position of when people were confronted the first time with the question- and keep confronting the students with what is currently unknown.
What's the most gratifying about teaching?
If the students actually enjoy it. I think it's an enjoyable experience to understand something. And sometimes you can feel that the students understood a very complex connection, a very complex topic, and he actually likes it. He's very satisfied with that. And that's very satisfying for me, to feel that a student actually likes to learn.
What's the most exciting project in your lab right now?
I am really narrowly focused on Yeast. And we have our reasons for it, it's been a terrific model. The data which are available on it are incredible. You go to the internet and you ask about a gene on the sequence. By the end of the year every gene will have been deleted. There's a huge amount of data which you can just log onto the Internet and get. So some of the dirty work has been done by others. So now you can really focus on the issues- how do things work together. At the same moment, these concepts, especially checkpoint control, are being investigated in mammalian genes- and there are a lot of similarities, and differences. So it's this interplay with yeast- and there is now an incredible level of sophistication, and at the same time you're seeing what's happening in the mammalian field. And you can correlate, you can give the mammalian people ideas, and sometimes you also see differences.
For instance, we worked for a long time on a gene in yeast, and there are now, I didn't count the groups, but there are like six groups that have found the human homologue. So there's a lot of competition there- and nobody knows the function. We, and our colleagues in the field, in yeast have the best chance to get an idea of the function, and then the people who are doing human genetics will know what to look for. So it's this interplay of basic yeast genetics and human molecular biology, where it all has very important implications for cancer therapy. We can give them a lot of ideas.
There's actually now a request for an application from the NIH, on how to use model organisms like yeast for cancer therapy. And that's very gratifying, and very exciting, although I'm not dealing directly with human cells. But it's always in the backs of our minds.
What about competition between labs? Does it ever feel so cut-throat that it might negatively affect the science?
There is a lot of competition. What can I say?- It's stimulating, that's one part of it. It depends very much on the personalities of the people if you can collaborate or not. In most cases you can, but sometimes you cannot. It's also stimulating because you're able to be the first, or get a little piece of the action. It is a problem if you have a small lab like me, and that's a disadvantage compared to big groups. On the other hand you have to find your niche. You might find an aspect that has been overlooked by everyone.
When I started in this field there was not many people working on it. There has been quite an explosion. Competition comes also from other organisms. So it's not just our yeast that acts as a model organism- there is also another yeast, there's drosophila, there's c. elegans, and that is not so much competition, but you learn other aspects. So it's a mistake to think that whatever we find in yeast is true up to the elephant. There is some flexibility- so each model will tell you something that is common to all models, but there are also differences, and you have to deal with that.
What would you tell undergraduates who are interested in your field ? For instance, what's the daily life of a research scientist like?
It's a great experience, a great job when you're a graduate student, when you're a post-doc, and then a change comes if you are going to be on your own, because then you are not going to be 100% scientist anymore. You have to deal with administration, you have to deal with teaching, which hopefully you like, and if you don't like it don't do it. And you have to deal with grant-writing. Some people can do it, some can't- for me it's a major pain. I'm not sure it has to do with your scientific abilities. It's a technique you have to learn. I know that part of the graduate education here is practicing grant writing. I hate it, but we all have to do it.
You are going to be out of the lab every day for a significant amount of time. It's always going to be a struggle. If you can think you can deal with that, it's the right career for you. There are other careers- industry careers, and there it really depends very much on the specific position. It can be very gratifying. Even if you want to do 100% research. At a big company like genentech, you have an astonishing amount of freedom. So don't you think you have to work on something that has to be on the market the next day- it depends very much on the company.
So don't exclude that as a career option. [industry] If you love the field, if you love science, you'll have a great time, as a graduate student and as a post-doc. Then the problems may start.
Do you think that the people who get the grants are the best scientists, or is there a disjunction between who can write the grants that get the money and who could actually do good science?
I agree with the latter, but I that's my personal opinion, my colleagues may see it differently. I don't think there's much of a correlation. But that may be an extreme view. Scientific progress, and how does it work- it starts out with some very diffuse efforts; trying something, selecting something, exploring something, without really having an idea. You have a general idea, but you are looking in all directions. And that's exactly what you cannot do when you write a grant. All my colleagues know that. That's what the study section would call a fishing expedition, and they laugh at that. But my personal view is that science starts out as a fishing expedition.
The grant proposal is not how you organize your research. It's a technique, you learn, and it costs a lot of time. On the other hand, I have trouble suggesting a different system. So, the Hughes foundation does something like that- they look at your track record, ask what you've done before, listen to your future plans, and then they give you the money, and you do with it whatever you want. They monitor you after a couple of years, but you have the freedom to do whatever you decide. That's difficult to do nation-wide. The NIH has certain focuses, and they want certain types of applications. So I have trouble suggesting something else. But it takes a lot of time and the real scientific progress works in a different way.
Do you think that more money should be given to 'basic science' research?
Sure, I wouldn't say no to more funding, but things have gotten better over the years. It's not so difficult as it was before. It's still difficult enough. I think the universities could play a bigger role in that. For instance, a university like where I came from, UT Southwestern, they have the big Southwestern Medical Foundation, so they are very rich, and they can actually set their own goals, and they can finance whatever they think is necessary. Emory has some of these mechanisms, but they should be expanded.
But it is, of course, a question of the funds. So in general I would like to see the universities play a bigger role in that. But that's a problem, too, to even suggest it at most universities. Comparing it to Germany, in Germany your salary is guaranteed if you have a university job, so you don't have to recover it from grants. That gives you a certain level of freedom. If you don't get grants, you are able to survive to some extent on university money. I don't know if it's a better system, so let's just repeat: I would like to see universities play a bigger role in that.
Do you have any hobbies outside of work?
You can see me at the Atlanta Opera if you want. I'm on stage frequently. I'm a super. So that's where students can see me. (laughs) So, I have lots of musical interests, and theater. Let's leave it at that.
Do you have any other advice for undergraduates?
I remember a professor of mine in Frankfurt, and he said 'You know, when I started in biology, employment opportunities looked very bad.' It was a situation where you were almost sure to be unemployed, at least for a certain amount of time. He was a professor of Zoology, and he said 'You have to relax. If you enjoy this, by all means do it.' So I've always said, 'y'know, if I'm not a professor, I can still open a restaurant,' -he liked cooking. There was always the part of the zoology course when they did oysters, and he always cooked them, and that was a big party. He had the perfect recipe. He was a good cook, too, so he would have succeeded in that, too, but he was lucky and became a famous professor.
You have to do what you like to do. If you find out that you're forced to do a particular thing, and it doesn't satisfy you, try something else. You have to like what you're doing. That's true everywhere, and even in molecular biology. You have to endure a certain level of frustration. You have to face that- it can happen that you have years without data. You have to think about how, if you can survive that.
What do you like best about your job?
It's the enjoyment, the satisfaction of discovery. Even if it's something little- a little trick, a little observation which tells you something new, opens up a new dimension. But don't think about it as a big Nobel-prize-winning discovery. It's little things, they make your day, they will keep you going. Only a few of us will win the Nobel Prize. I never got too determined about being famous. So try to find satisfaction in the discoveries which happen every day. That keeps one going.
|
