In basic science lab research, many scientists use cells to study a particular disease. For example, since my project deals with understanding some of the molecular mechanisms of colon cancer, I utilize different colon cancer cell lines (such as SW480, HCT116, HT29, etc).

While a cell line should be the same whether it’s in a lab in California or whether it is in NY, I have always had this suspicion that a cell line could be different in two different labs. Why? Well, cells can condition themselves to the environment in which they are growing, and since they are cancer cells, they tend to accumulate random mutations the older they get.

Clearly this would pose a huge problem… a lab can publish an article listing their observations in HT29, which would contradict another lab’s published work in the same cell line. Both observations, even though contradictory, may be accurate.

The above-stated thoughts were not based on hard data, so they were mere gut feelings. This suspicion, however, was unfortunately confirmed in my last PhD committee meeting, when I showed results in HT29 that was contradictory to previously published work. At first, my committee questioned my results…

It turns out, there are two different strains of HT29. While I was glad to learn that my work was accurate, I was saddened, because my fear was confirmed… some results in the lab could be simply artifacts of the the system.

Simple and logical assumptions (assuming that a cell line should be the same) can cause a lot of drama and lost time. It seems rather daunting and overwhelming when the implication here is that scientists need to critically analyze everything… especially when they are pondering complex systems, such as cancer or a cell line.

Last Thursday (May 24th) I had a PhD committee meeting. It went great. I got awesome suggestions and critiques from my committee members… however, these meetings can be visually depicted by the following comic.

The only difference is that a committee meeting has 5 fire-hydrant hoses instead of just one.

When I first started grad school, I was somewhat intimidated by professors, who are well-established and successful scientists in their fields. I read their publications, learned from them quite a bit. For a good reason, I felt a huge chasm between their tremendous knowledge and experiences and me, as a budding scientist.

As I progressed in my research, and the idea of publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal emerged, I began to think…

My journal article will present my research to the whole scientific community, which includes other professors and scientists across the U.S. and the world. They will read my paper and some will use it as a building block for their research or knowledge.

Wow.

While as a graduate student, I have much to learn, I no longer have to be a bystander or an observer in science, I can be an “impact player”.

I have had the pleasure of having dinner last Thursday evening and lunch last Friday with Alfred Knudson. In addition to the Wikipedia link on my last blog entry, you can read a more detailed description of his career here. He is most famous for formulating the “two-hit” theory, which identified a distinct difference between hereditary versus sporadic cancer, and suggested the presence of “tumor-suppressor” genes.

Beyond a doubt, he is an excellent scientist. What struck me the most, however, while I had dinner and lunch with him is how personable, respectable, and considerate he was. He listened to the graduate students as experts in their fields… he asked questions of the graduate students with the expectation to learn something new.

I was one of the few people who had both dinner and lunch with him, and I must have made an impression on him… after lunch, when he was about to leave for his next appointment, he turned around and made sure he shook my hands before he left. That meant a lot to me.

In addition to being an excellent scientist, Alfred Knudson is a wonderful human being.

When a graduate student is pursuing a PhD in a science field (I am not sure if this is universal among other fields), the student’s advisor has traditionally expected the student to pursue an academic career. Why? I am not exactly sure, but perhaps, faculty members view the curiosity and pursuit of scientific knowledge (exemplified in an academic environment) would be superior to any other career choice. Maybe it is a completely different reason.

Nowadays, however, I feel that faculty members are more open to the idea that their students would pursue other career choices. What has led to that shift? I don’t know, but I can speculate… perhaps, it is the lack of funding to academic labs, or maybe it is the result of a progressive mindset that has been spreading in the academic hallways… there is more to life than academia.

For a long time now I have known that my future would not entail lab research. I love research, I think it is fascinating… but I do not particularly enjoy the context at which research is conducted. I have known for some time now that my plan is to generate income through web-based businesses and dedicate my time to develop a personally funded non-profit organization that will address some of the problems that turn me off to academic research.

Even though faculty members, as I mentioned, are more open-minded… I am still cautious about openly sharing my future dreams and goals.

If you are a graduate student in a science field and desire to pursue alternative careers in science, please get in touch with me, and let’s bounce some ideas off of each other.

You can learn more about my vision through my digital resume.