When David Eagleman, a neuroscientist at Stanford, wrote the New York Times bestseller Incognito, I read it voraciously. The world of the mind opened to me. My subconscious brain took on an entirely new meaning to me. Eagleman’s research felt salient, relevant, and crucial to our understanding and progress as a species.
{credit}Asonlobo/Wikipedia; CC-BY-SA-4.0{/credit}
This piece was one of two winners of the Science Innovation Union writing competition, Oxford.
“This is downtown San Francisco, our train’s final stop. Can all passengers please detrain? All detrain please. All detrain.” Perhaps it was the heady fug of jetlag that made this broadcast particularly amusing to my UK-English language sensibilities, but I “detrained” all the same and stepped into the crisp morning air of the Californian rush hour.
I was on the west coast to visit two genetics start-ups as part of a whirlwind three-day tour of the US. With a long postdoc and several first author papers tucked into my belt, I wanted to see if these credentials would pass muster in the tech haven of Silicon Valley. I’ve always found the loneliness of solo work-travel to be highly amenable to strategic thought, and this American adventure was an opportunity to reflect on why I was there and what I wanted.
Emma is now Global Medical Affairs Leader for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in GSK’s Respiratory Division.
As a child, I was fascinated by how things work, especially the human body, and I decided I wanted some kind of career in science. Medicine seemed like the ideal avenue and offered a reassuringly clear path including training and employment prospects.
{credit}iStockphoto/Thinkstock{/credit}
When I started out in my PhD I was excited about the challenges I would face. Two and a half years later I’m still excited about my research, but, like most PhD projects, it‘s not all been smooth sailing. Rather than let how I was feeling derail my progress, I decided to use my training as a psychologist to develop ways to be proactive about managing mental health during the course of a PhD.
MIT App Designer 2
In the 4 May Nature technology feature, I explore the growing use of smartphones to drive scientific research. Today’s phones are so full-featured, they’re often ready for use out-of-the-box. Sometimes, though, a custom app is required, and that can be a sticking point, as programming a mobile app isn’t easy.
On Saturday, April 22nd, myself and an estimated 11,000 other science supporters marched in Berlin. The event was part of the global “March for Science” that took place in over 600 cities worldwide. While the March here and everywhere else was a great success in putting a spotlight on the importance of research and the danger of building on false facts, I’m worried it won’t have a lasting effect on the public perception of science if we don’t improve our science communication.
The March for Science passes the Brandenburg gate in Berlin, Germany
Whether you’re relocating around the block, across town, or to a completely new city, moving is not a trivial task. For many PhD students and early career researchers, moving to a new research group can play a key role in professional development. It’s a way to gain new perspectives for your research, expand your professional network, and to work in a prestigious or well-known group in your field. Sometimes the best move for your career isn’t just across towns or cities, but is one that involves moving away from your home country, either temporarily or permanently.
In the wake of the US presidential election in November 2017, the scientific community has recognized that it has fallen short in communicating the value of science and research. As a result, scientists are now calling for increased public outreach and communication efforts. While this awareness is important, the path forward is not entirely clear.
A guest blog by James Beck, Ph.D., Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, Parkinson’s Foundation
Dr James Beck
This year, we mark 200 years since James Parkinson published his famous monograph, An Essay on the Shaking Palsy. In that time, we have reached many key milestones in science that have dramatically improved the lives of the ten million people worldwide who live with Parkinson’s. Yet we still have nothing to slow the disease and nothing to stop it.
At the Parkinson’s Foundation, we consider the bicentennial anniversary of James Parkinson’s work a perfect time to look back at lessons learned and ahead at what’s to come. For example, looking back at the time that has passed since 1817, few milestones have been as monumental as the identification of levodopa by George Cotzias in 1967 and its subsequent confirmation as a life-changing Parkinson’s treatment by Dr. Melvin Yahr in 1968.
Today, our community still relies on levodopa as the gold-standard drug to treat Parkinson’s motor symptoms. Despite the lack of newer drugs, scientific progress has not stopped. In fact, we predict that advances in the next 20 years will likely outpace the progress of the past 200.
As we scan the horizon, we are seeing advances in healthcare and science that will lead to new ways of living better with the disease. The increasing intersections between information technology, healthcare, biomarkers, and genetics may help us to predict who will develop Parkinson’s. Meanwhile, advances in technology are portending a day when we can accurately measure the progression of Parkinson’s. Most importantly, we may be on the cusp of testing new hypotheses that will allow us to reach our ultimate end goal of stopping Parkinson’s.
This is exciting. However, if we want these advances to come to fruition, we must heed the lessons learned from Cotzias’s story — the need for human capital.
Many people may be surprised to learn that Cotzias’ key discovery of levodopa and Dr. Yahr’s follow-up study were milestones that were nearly missed. In the 1960s, funding was plentiful, and many researchers were testing levodopa. Where so many failed, only Cotzias succeeded, and he did so by taking a unique approach that no one could have predicted would work.
His story illustrates what many scientists know: that we cannot predict where answers will come from, and that we need a diverse cadre of people looking at diseases from different angles to solve them. Thus, he tells us what we need to create a world without Parkinson’s – people.
We need people who dedicate their careers to Parkinson’s research. Yet, over the past 20 years, human capital in the research community has been in jeopardy. The average age at which a scientist receives his or her first R01 (the original and historically oldest grant mechanism used by the NIH) has crept up from their 30s to their early 40s, leading droves of talented researchers to leave the lab for more stable careers.
If we don’t change our way of thinking about the next generation of scientists, we could easily lose a cadre of researchers who are at the prime of their careers. At the Parkinson’s Foundation, we are doing our part by dedicating millions of dollars to support early-career scientists and clinicians.
But this isn’t enough. As a society, we need to value the up-and-coming generation for their creativity and support their ingenuity. A few weeks from now, on June 1st, we’re bringing together some of the best and brightest of the next generation for a scientific event entitled, “World Without Parkinson’s.” We’re asking one question of each these up-and-coming leaders, “How do you predict your area of expertise will help to end Parkinson’s?”
Will any of them have the right answer? Is the next George Cotzias among our speakers?
We don’t know. But we know that we have to continue to ask the question and make opportunities available for researchers to thrive until we find him or her.
In fact, it’s the only way we can find the world we envision — the one in which Parkinson’s no longer exists.
The Parkinson’s Foundation is working toward a world without Parkinson’s disease. Formed by the merger of National Parkinson Foundation and the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation in August 2016, the mission of the Parkinson’s Foundation is to invest in promising scientific research that will end Parkinson’s disease and improve the lives of people with Parkinson’s, and their families, through improved treatments, support and the best care. For more information, visit www.parkinsonsfoundation.org or call (800) 4PD-INFO (473-4636) or (800) 457-6676.
Early career scientists are often told that networking is important for future career prospects and mobility. Often, this comes in the form of a nudge to attend university seminars, events for local scientific professionals or national conferences. These are typically great for meeting scientists working in your city or country – but developing an international network can often be much more difficult. First, scientists are most often around others working at their university or research centre, making this their primary network. Second, travel to attend international conferences may be cost-prohibitive, especially for early career scientists. Finally, connecting with colleagues outside of the country may not be on the radar of students and postdocs, or may seem overwhelming at that stage of a scientific career.
