This spring, our featured MSTP alumni Dr. Ruth Heidelberger, shared her journey into science, experiences with M.D./Ph.D. training, career development as a scientist, and life after training as an Academic Professor with MSTP student Tyler Guinn. Dr. Heidelberger’s scientific trek began at Stony Brook with Dr. Paul Lauterbur and has evolved over the past several decades, gaining M.D.-Ph.D. training at Stony Brook, postdoctoral training in Göttingen, Germany, and becoming a Full Professor and Co-Director of the M.D./Ph.D. Program at The University of Texas Health Science Center (UTHealth) and The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center where she holds the Frederic B. Asche Chair in Ophthalmology. She tells us about perspectives important to development in basic science disciplines, obtaining tenure-track positions, and even some musical hobbies!

Background, College, & Starting Research

What motivated you to pursue a scientific career?

I always enjoyed science and people, and I applied to SBU with the intent of studying chemistry and then eventually switching over to a health-related profession.  However, I had the opportunity to join the laboratory of Dr. Paul C. Lauterbur the summer preceding my first semester at SBU.  I loved the experience and worked with him throughout my undergraduate years.

What was your first project?

I started out doing simple things like washing glassware, making BNC cables and developing film, but eventually, moved on to assisting with animal surgeries, collecting data and participating in research studies.  This was between 1980 and 1984, when MRI was being developed, and Paul was one of the developers of this technology.  I worked on some of the very early studies on the use of paramagnetic contrast agents and testing whether MRI could be used to detect cancer and other lesions and anomalies.  The whole technology was so exciting to me that I majored in chemistry so that I could better understand the theoretical underpinnings of MRI.  While I was in the lab, we also started working with clinicians, in addition to physicists, chemists and mathematicians. This unique experience led to my decision to pursue M.D./Ph.D. training. By the way, Paul was an excellent mentor. Not only would he bring undergraduates into the lab, he also took high school students in for the summer.

Were there aspects of this lab that drew you towards pursuing a medical degree and Ph.D.?  

I loved the mix of working with everyone from physicists to chemists to physicians.  Even as a teen, I could see the importance of being able to understand the different facets of the work and the need to have someone with the ability to speak the different scientific and medical languages.

MSTP Training:

You studied chemistry during your undergraduate degree and neurobiology during your graduate degree. How, if at all, did your undergraduate research influence your choice of a dissertation lab? What skills were you able to use during Ph.D. that you learned from undergraduate?

As a chemistry undergraduate, I received outstanding training in quantitative sciences.  I also had an instrumentation laboratory as part of this training.  I was very comfortable with technology, oscilloscopes, and using computers to analyze data (this was long before personal computers).  I became interested in the brain during one of our studies on using MRI to detect brain lesions and took my distribution credits in brain-related courses, including a course in physiological psychology with Nancy Squires.  I even got wired up for one of her studies.  Becoming a neuroscientist who uses biophysical approaches to study neuronal mechanisms became a natural fit.

Dr. Gary Matthews came to Stony Brook shortly before the start of your M.D./Ph.D. training. What drew you to the work of Dr. Gary Matthews and the area of neurobiology?   

Gary taught in a first-year graduate course in cellular neurophysiology, and he had that rare ability to take something very difficult and break it down into its simplest essence. He would then rebuild it back up, and it would all make sense. He was also working at the rig, doing some very sophisticated experiments to identify and characterize the ion channel in photoreceptors that is gated by light. I had already fallen in love with electrophysiology and wanted to record from neurons, and so I asked to join his lab. I liked the way his mind worked, and I knew from the class that I would be able to learn from him.  I was his first student, which can be a little risky, but it worked out fine.  He was an outstanding mentor.

As your MSTP training came to a close, what medical school and graduate school experiences influenced moving into your next academic position?

As I headed into MSIV I still loved everything neuro (psychology and neurology) as well as some other clinical areas.  Given my research training in neuroscience, I considered a dual psychiatry/neurology residency.  However, Dr. Erwin Neher, whom I had met through my Ph.D. advisor, had invited me to join his lab in Göttingen, Germany for postdoctoral training.  This was very tempting because he had developed the techniques I was using in the Matthews laboratory, and I was interested in applying some of his newer approaches to my research questions.  However, for an M.D./Ph.D., to do a postdoc after finishing medical school was a big decision. Therefore, I decided to visit his lab in Germany, to see for myself if it would be the right choice for me. After only a few hours in his lab, talking science with his people, I wanted to join his group.  It was a very exciting environment for me. The group was outstanding and they worked on the types of questions that I was interested in answering. .  Dr. Neher told me later that I was the only postdoc to ever interview him – but for an M.D./Ph.D., where a lot is riding on the decision, this was the right thing for me to have done.  A few months after my decision, Dr. Neher was awarded a Nobel Prize.

 

Postgraduate Training:

For students about to make similar transitions from graduation or residency to a post-doc position, what aspects from your experience stand out as important to keep mindful of when switching labs, disciplines, areas, etc.?

First, you want to follow your interests. You also need to be sure that the new lab/mentor is a good fit for you.  Particularly early on, your choice of mentor is very important, perhaps more so than the particular research question.  A good mentor can give you the tools to think like a scientist and allow you to make and recover from mistakes. Should you switch labs or fields, you bring your knowledge base with you.  This knowledge base may give you a new perspective on your research question that no one else has had and can help you develop your own niche.

What stands out to you as important differences and similarities of your post-doctoral fellowship to your time during graduate school that were important for success?

One of the underlying themes of my training has been scientific rigor and integrity.  I look for that in the people when I consider starting a collaboration.  In addition, a successful collaboration is one in which both parties bring something new or unique to the effort. Finally, collaborations work best when both parties have a similar work ethic. It can be hard if one partner is a procrastinator, slap-it-together, last minute type of person and the other does things in a laboriously slow way with great attention to every detail.  One gets a feel for some of these things by talking with potential collaborators and by critical reading of their papers.

My mentors were very careful, thoughtful and meticulous scientists. They also either did their own experiments or were otherwise engaged in almost all aspects of the project. I worked directly with them.  For me, this was an amazing opportunity to learn from directly from the best.

As your post-doctoral training begin to conclude after completing M.D./Ph.D. training and finalizing your post-doc, what career options were you considering at the time?

Everything was open for me as I headed into my third year.  Then, Dr. Neher won the Nobel Prize, so it did not seem wise to postpone joining his lab until after internship or residency training. However, I still left the door open to returning to a residency program after completing my postdoc.  To this end, I applied to the state of NY to have my time window for completing all three parts of the boards scores extended from 5 to 7 years. Ultimately, I decided to stay longer with Dr. Neher and then to apply for faculty positions as a discovery scientist.

Did you receive any pieces of advices that still resonate with you today about pursuing the M.D./Ph.D. path? Are there things you would tell trainees in those positions now?

I think that is important to understand what it is that motivates you.  A clinical faculty wrote in one of my MSIII evaluations that I “always wanted to know why.”  This comment resonated with me because I really do want to know why, and this is why I ultimately chose discovery science over a dual career. Knowing that about myself made it easier to make a very tough choice.  I think that it is important to know what you find thrilling. Is it discovery and knowing something that was previously unknown? Is it restoring a patient to health? Uncovering a better way to manage a clinical problem? You can learn a lot about where your interests and strengths are as you go through the dual-degree training.  Armed with that information, you can best decide which of your opportunities you want to pursue.

The other thing I have learned is to not let fear or other peoples’ expectations make your career decision for you. Gather information and consider the source of that information and the weight it should be given, gather your own first-hand information, and give yourself time to mull everything over.

Academic appointments:

Immediately after you completed your post-doctoral fellowship, you began a tenure track position at the University of Texas Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy. You also obtained several fellowships, foundations funds, and even an R01 during this short time after starting at UTHealth. What do you believe was crucial in obtaining these startup funds early in your career and what advice would you give to individuals pursuing a similar path attempting to acquire funding?

Surely, my Ph.D. training helped me with how to write a grant, and the presentations that one gives as being part of a ward team and as a researcher helped me frame the questions and tell a story.  The broad training that one gets from completing an M.D./Ph.D. program is also an advantage in grant writing. For example, one of the fellowships that I applied for and received was to a foundation that funded epilepsy research.  While preparing this application, I thought back to everything I knew about epilepsy and how we managed it in the clinic, what worked, what didn’t, etc.  This gave me insight into how to couch the application because I knew where the gaps were in our understanding and treatment of epilepsy, and I could then use this knowledge to explain how the proposed work would help fill those gaps.

Upon starting at UTHealth, you seemed to have many roles including teaching, obtaining funding, performing research, serving on advisory committees for students to name a few. How did you manage your time during this early-career period? How was this different than your time as a post-doctoral fellow? How was this different than your time as a graduate student?

In retrospect, postdoc life is relatively carefree compared to being a faculty member.  Learning when to say “no” to and how to do that gracefully is a bit of an art that I am still learning.  Sometimes, you can negotiate to take on a suggested new responsibility in exchange for being relieved of another responsibility.  Throughout the process, it is important to know your own priorities. It is also important to not become over-burdened. No one will protect your time for you but you.

After several years of productive research and outstanding teaching awards at UTHealth, you obtained tenure. That same year you also became Co-Director of the UTHealth & The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center M.D./Ph.D. program. What advice would give to young investigators who just completed training and secured a tenure-track position?

A major component of obtaining tenure in the basic sciences is to have a strong research track record, as evidenced by peer-reviewed publications and federal funding, typically requiring either the renewal of a grant or multiple awards. This should be your area of primary focus.  One must also have some teaching contributions and service.  In hindsight, I probably had too much service, but a lot of that came through my association with the M.D./Ph.D. program, which I have thoroughly enjoyed.

After obtaining the physician-scientist training through your M.D. and Ph.D. at Stony Brook, you decided to help mentor the next generation of physician-scientists through the UTHealth program. How did you decide to end up joining this program as a Director?

As an M.D./Ph.D. in a basic science faculty position, my time is more flexible than those who function as physician-scientists.  I am also perhaps better suited to working with M.D./Ph.D. students than straight on PhD’s. So, when I considered my institutional service, I couldn’t think of an opportunity that I was more interested in or more uniquely qualified to participate in than M.D./Ph.D. training.  One of the things that I recall from my own training was the need to gather regularly as M.D./Ph.D. students.  I also recall how it feels when our classmates match and move on in their careers while we are still in the lab and seemingly endless years away from graduating. We have a weekly seminar course for M.D./Ph.D. students that brings everyone together, and there are special events for M.D./Ph.D. students, such as an un-match party, held at the time of the match.

We also do our M.D./Ph.D. training differently here.   We encourage our students to complete their first three years of medical school before coming out for their Ph.D. training.  This allows them to see patients, experience being part of a ward team and learn about diseases in actual people – all before choosing their thesis project.  That allows one to adapt their research to match their clinical interests, rather than vice versa, and helps keep them on the dual physician–scientist pathway.

Miscellaneous:

What were important activities or habits that helped you with your career? 

Fun fact – I like to play music as a hobby.  This gave me experience in being vulnerable in front of a group of people and how to work with microphones.

What were activities outside of the research that were important to you throughout your life and helped balance your career?

I’ve always had a little musical sideline.  I played with several different types of groups over my training and here in Houston. I choose flexible opportunities so that they don’t become an added burden.  I have also learned to be comfortable in not playing for long periods of time if my focus needs to be elsewhere.  Learning to be flexible with hobbies, either with respect to time or skill level, is important.  One cannot be their 100% best in everything that they do.  Just keeping an oar in the water can be enough to provide a small respite from one’s career.

Who are role models in your field (research or medical or personal life) and what makes them stand out to you? 

My mentors have been my role models. They are/were people of high scientific and personal integrity.  They remind me of my dad, a person of integrity.

What aspect(s) of your training at Stony Brook did you find the most useful for moving into post-doctoral position and eventually a faculty position?

One thing that has been very helpful is that I feel that SBU is my home.  When I have needed advice, I have reached out to my former faculty, and they have been there for me.  For example, when I was asked to teach gross anatomy, I remembered something that Jack Stern, one of my anatomy professors at SB, taught us – I emailed him, and he very kindly sent me a copy of his chapter on the topic and advice on to how to best present the information to medical students. I have also reached out to the M.D./Ph.D. program for advice when we were preparing our own MSTP application, and until his passing, I have collaborated and consulted with my thesis advisor on a variety of different things over the years. A few years ago, it was my privilege to be invited back to the chemistry department to give a convocation address.

Are there any aspects, locations, or peoples that you miss about Long Island or Stony Brook? 

Long Island is beautiful.  One appreciates this more, as one travels the world. As a postdoctoral fellow, I attended a meeting on the French Riviera and found myself comparing it a little unfavorably to Long Island’s north shore beaches and our own West Meadow Beach.

Concluding Remarks:

I am very proud to be a Stony Brook Alumna.  When I return to campus, I am impressed by the exciting and innovative new initiatives and how Stony Brook University continues to prepare students to meet the future.  Years ago, someone once asked me if I were so smart, why didn’t my parents send me to an Ivy League school.  SBU offers a tremendous opportunity at an affordable price. (In my day, a decent summer job could pay for a year’s tuition).  The advantages that I received, from excellence in research training, to excellence in medical and clinical training, have been instrumental in getting me to where I am today.  It’s an honor to call Stony Brook my alma mater.

Article by Tyler Guinn, GS3.