Blog Posts

Finding Meaning in Science

By Yifei Wang

 

A few years ago, my best friend was diagnosed with medullary sponge kidney, a condition which currently has no effective treatment. Medullary sponge kidney is a rare disease causing frequent kidney stones and urinary tract infections. In rare cases, like my friend’s, the patient gradually loses kidney function, ultimately resulting in kidney failure.

At the time of my friend’s diagnosis, I was an undergraduate student majoring in biochemistry. I struggled with my major because it was not what I expected. I had imagined I would only need to understand biology for my major. Instead, multiple subjects including chemistry, math, and physics, were needed to build up appropriate knowledge to fully understand biology. Some subjects were boring, or even frustrating to learn. I wasn’t enjoying my courses and considered changing my major. But, once my friend was diagnosed, I suddenly had motivation to continue studying biochemistry. I set a goal to one day find a cure for him.

I continued to push through my unexciting courses and began working in the lab where I started to enjoy science. Hands-on research made the conceptual knowledge of textbooks tangible and easier to understand. In the lab, I could solve problems incrementally, though many small jumps in understanding.

I loved science even more upon designing a prototype system in my Anatomy class to help patients such as my friend improve their quality of life. After completing the project and presenting it to the class, I felt for the first time that my science could truly help people. This gave me the courage to continue with my coursework.

Hopefully in the future I can complete my goal of finding a cure for patients like my friend. I feel great studying science because I am applying my studies to help people. While I have not yet made a direct impact on patient health, I can appreciate that I’m reaching my goal step by step. With science, my life is meaningful.

Connect with me on Twitter @Laplata1021

Getting Comfortable

By Michael Meleties

 /var/folders/rb/_5lx2_yx47dd7qf2t1ff44y40000gn/T/com.microsoft.Word/WebArchiveCopyPasteTempFiles/1_9HzbByi2Uzit8474Rp4ZPg-1.jpg?w=550&ssl=1

When I was first applying to graduate school, I initially wanted to remain at the institution where I completed my undergraduate degree. It was a good school, close to home, and I was comfortable there. When my professor suggested that it would be difficult to do that, I was stunned. It just didn’t make sense to me. After my professor explained that the conventional thought in the engineering field is that students shouldn’t do their graduate work at the same place they do their undergraduate degree in order to “learn a different way of thinking”, I relented in my pursuit to stay where I was comfortable.

Fast forward a couple of months and I was starting my graduate studies at NYU. I was excited as I was joining a growing department that looked poised to become a powerhouse in engineering and I was able to stay in New York. Of course, along with my excitement came an air of nervousness, natural when starting somewhere new. Eventually, with time I became more comfortable and everything was going smoothly.

At the end of my second year at NYU, I was given the opportunity to do research at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in Dayton, Ohio for one month. I knew this opportunity was too good to pass up and that I would have to be well-prepared to make the most of my time there. I spent the weeks leading up to the summer testing different conditions and trying to find the ideal parameters for my experiments, eventually arriving to what I thought were ideal conditions. I had all the work I would completed at the AFRL planned out, and assumed everything would go according to plan (spoiler alert: never assume this in science).

I arrived in Ohio, and on the second day there I found out that some of the materials I needed for my protein purification weren’t available. I knew there were multiple methods of protein purification, but I had grown accustomed to the protocol I perform in my lab at NYU, and because of the limited time I had, I wanted to stick to what I was used to. After a period of anxiety and not knowing what to do, I contacted my lab mates back in New York on how I should proceed. The general consensus of the advice I received was to just get on with it. I was able to rework the protocol based on the available materials and instrumentation and still got the same results.

I consider my experience at NYU to have given me my first way of thinking, as it was my first exposure to research. It wasn’t until my third week in Dayton that I finally understood what my undergraduate professor meant when they said I needed to learn different ways of thinking. It seems like the perfect example that one of my purposes in spending time at the AFRL was to get trained in differential dynamic microscopy. I already had knowledge of multiparticle tracking, from my work at NYU. These methods are both microrheological techniques where tracer particles are introduced into a solution with the aim of getting information on the mechanical properties of the solution. While both methods have the same raw data (videos/image stacks of tracer particle movement in the sample) and the same results should be obtained, the methods of analysis to arrive at the results are what’s different. Each method has advantages and disadvantages relative to others (including ones I’m not as familiar with), so it is important to consider which would be more suitable for the experiment at hand.

(Left to Right) Dr. Zach Reinert, Me, Dr. Rhett Martineau, Dr. Maneesh Gupta

 

The experience I obtained in Dayton was beneficial for me in two ways. On a small scale, I was trained in the implementation of differential dynamic microscopy, a technique that I will be using throughout my studies. On a larger scale, the words of my undergraduate professor were validated and I see the value in experiencing new things and seeing how things are done in different labs. My advice to the reader would be to not be afraid to seek out opportunities that push you out of your comfort zone; eventually you’ll find that it’s the best way to make your comfort zone bigger!

 

They told me I haven’t been to Dayton unless I go to the Air Force Museum, so here I am!

 

My Scientific Summer with the Navy

By Joe Thomas

Academia or industry? This is a question that every grad student is asked at some point regarding their career plans.  As tenured academic positions become incredibly difficult for the bulk of life science graduates to obtain, industry is an attractive alternative that provides a wealth of different opportunities. These jobs are an obvious choice to apply the skills accumulated over the course of a PhD, but there are even more opportunities available outside of the traditional academia/industry dichotomy for those looking for something a little different. PhD scientists are trained to be highly technical leaders, a skill set that is in high demand in many defense/military positions. The Department of Defense (DoD) is always looking to recruit highly specialized researchers to work on projects of national importance. These roles allow researchers to be involved in cutting edge work that has a direct, near-term impact while serving your country.

Since starting graduate school, I have had an interest in working for/with the military as a researcher but was never able to interact with anyone who had direct knowledge of how to break into the field. Scholarships such as the NDSEG are widely publicized and allow graduate students to work on topics of national importance, but I was looking for something more involved with day-to-day military operations. A chance Google search revealed that the Navy uses numerous internship programs as pipelines for new hires. I applied for an NREIP internship and was fortunate enough to be selected to spend the summer at a Navy lab. NREIP internships are available to undergraduates and graduate students alike and involve working alongside a Navy mentor for 10 weeks to get a glimpse of how the DoD does science. My internship has me working with the Naval Medical Research Unit garrisoned at Wright Patterson in Dayton, Ohio. I am working in their Environmental Health Effects Laboratory which is in charge of investigating the effects of chemical exposures on military personnel. I have been tasked with developing a high-throughput analytical chemistry workflow that will allow the Navy to rapidly screen many different environmental exposures to assess how service members may be at risk. This new procedure will directly support and inform the military during their operations to help keep soldiers, sailors, and airmen safe and effective. During my time here, I have interacted with many Navy officers as well as civilian employees who work together in a tightly coordinated team to achieve their mission. The unit has researchers from many diverse backgrounds including biochemistry, physiology, physics, neuroscience, biomedical engineering, and psychology. Since the team is incredibly multidisciplinary, scientists are able to step outside of their comfort zone and gain experience in different fields if they choose. In this way researchers can build their resumes to move up within the organization or to transition into other scientific specialties.

Joe blog

Opportunities exist for those looking to serve in and out of uniform. The Navy recruits life science PhD gradates as officers to act as biochemists, microbiologists, and aerospace physiologists. In these roles they use their scientific knowledge to complete a wide range of tasks such as conducting safety training, running drug testing labs, developing vaccines, teaching at the Naval Academy, performing humanitarian missions, and carrying out basic research. Aerospace physiologists for example leverage their knowledge of biology and the human body to act as aeromedical safety officers. In this role they are in charge of the safety and training of their aviation unit and even have the chance to become rated pilots. These officers typically spend little time conducting experiments at the lab bench, but the knowledge and scientific skills they have acquired during graduate school are still applied every day during operations where they have to identify and solve technical problems. When they do receive research assignments however, they can act as department heads responsible for writing grants and coordinating a large team that conducts relevant aerospace research. PhD’s are also hired as civilians to conduct and oversee research programs of interest to the DoD. In this role they act as PI’s who are responsible for writing grants and directing a research team, similar to a PI in academia. PhD level scientists can work in GS (government service) rated roles or as government contractors. Bachelor’s and master’s level scientists can also work as contractors to carry out the day-to-day lab work that supports their command.

 The career fields available in defense research are incredibly varied on both the civilian and military side. Scientists have control over their careers and still maintain plentiful opportunities to secure grant funding and journal publications. Work/life balance is also heavily emphasized which can be a huge benefit for anyone with commitments outside of the workplace. If you are shying away from a job in academia or industry but still want to conduct meaningful research, a DoD job might be a good fit for you!

If this sounds interesting to you, Tweet me @jthoma91 and will be more than happy to answer any questions about the internship process and doing science with the Navy!

A Shift in Perspective

Xiaole Willy Wang

When I was pursuing my undergraduate degree, my professor at the time told me that one type of polypeptide of naked oats has a hypoglycemic effect. There is even an existing patent advocating the same conclusion. I was then challenged by my professor to conduct the same experiment.

“Check the results,” he said, “and if the results come back the same as the patent, you’ll have a chance of investigating further and write a research paper.”

I was so excited since having a published research paper is extremely helpful for an undergrad student, who plans to apply for grad school in America. It would give me more of an advantage among other applicants and be more likely to achieve my dream of being admitted to grad school. With that in mind it became the driving factor, and so I began my experiment.

First of all, I took for granted everything that happened during the experiment process including inconsistencies between my data and what was reported in the patent. My way of thinking, because the published patent is considered “right” and anything that is incongruous with it should be wrong. The right thing can be defined as something repeatable in practice, while the wrong thing is the opposite. What I did was take those inconsistencies as an operational miss, instead of the “wrong thing”. Even though I modified my experiment plan, I still could not repeat the so-called “right result”. With the increasing amount of failure, I became less and less confident and began suspecting whether the result could ever be repeated, I still insisted that it was my fault for the conflicting results.

I then realized that several others had failed as well in duplicating the patent’s result. The trial persuaded me into accepting the truth that the result of the patent can’t be repeated at all. I was chasing an expectation, my quixotic desire to have a published paper became my obsession. Why? What’s wrong with the patent? Surely a patent is an amazing achievement, while it can also be an idealistic fallacy. However, there is only one truth that stands, What we should follow is the truth, rather than accepting someone else’s version as actual fact.

What I learned from the experience is just as Aristotle’s saying goes ‘Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is a truth’, we, especially scientists, should also focus on things that can be questioned, we should not be blinded by specious theories. Questioning is the first step for not being blinded.

无标题

The Thing I do Outside of Research

By Matthew Moulton

I am a senior chemical engineering student at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. Outside of research and school, one sport that I love to play is handball. I was inspired to start playing at the end of my freshman year in high school after I watched a game between my classmates who were on the handball team. Handball is a sport in which players use their hands to hit a small rubber ball against a wall such that their opponent cannot do the same without the ball touching the ground twice. There are three versions of the game, one-wall, three wall and four-wall. Handball can be played in singles or doubles. The first player to 21 points wins the game. One-wall handball courts have a wall that is 6.1 m wide and 4.9 m high. The court floor is 6.1 m wide and 10.4 m long. I started to practice by playing against people at a park near my school. This was the first sport that I practiced consistently.

http://personal.psu.edu/vml5084/smithpark.jpg

                                   Handball Court*

To put the ball in play, a play must execute a serve. To serve the ball, a player must strike the ball to the wall such that its first bounce is past the short line. Once the ball is in play, players rally until a player fails to properly return the ball. In singles play, more emphasis is placed on the serve because the players have more ground to cover. A well placed serve can immediately put the opponent on the defensive. In doubles, each team has two players so it is more difficult to win a game using your serve alone. This is where strategy is important. One strategy is to identify the weaker player on the opponent’s team and target all of your serves towards that player. If that player hits a weak return, you or your teammate can easily capitalize on the opportunity to win a point. Another strategy is to aim your serve between your opponents. This can make the opponents hesitate when approaching the ball because they are not sure who should hit it. Ideally both opponents hesitate and they both miss the ball resulting in an easy point for your team. The next strategy is applicable during rallies. First hit the ball softly so that its first bounce is close to the wall. This will draw the opposing team towards the front of the court. When they return the ball, hit the ball hard so that it bounces to the back of the court. Hopefully the opposing team will be out of position from the first shot and your team will win.

I focused on playing doubles. I enjoyed doubles because the rallies are longer and there is more strategy involved than in singles play. I later joined the handball team during my junior year. While I was in high school I would practice about three times a week. Now I only play once a week during the warmer months. I continue to play handball because it relieves stress and it’s good exercise. 

What do you like to do outside of research?

-Matthew Anthony Moulton

@Matthew10309725

*http://personal.psu.edu/vml5084/History.html