by Tyler Guinn.Seeing the graduating MSTP class go on to residency this year brought me mixed emotions of both nostalgia and excitement for the graduates. It was the first graduating class I felt I had got to know professionally and personally during my own MSTP journey. You know, not those distant 4^th year medical students you see sporadically at journal club when you’re a MS1, but people you know at a personal level. I met each person of the class at slightly different times but reflecting back I realized each contributed to the MSTP community at Stony Brook in their unique ways as friends, role models, and trailblazers.

Bryce Schroeder & Raja Pillai had been my introduction to Stony Brook as volunteers to take interviewees out for dinner and drinks the night before stressful interviews. Their custom of welcoming potential students with a stress-free dinner has been maintained as a program tradition which seems to have strengthened the cohesion of our program and only grown since their initial efforts. Ping He was also one of the first students I met during interviews at Stony Brook offering campus tours for the students, interviewing applicants, and answering questions over lunch. When I moved to New York knowing no one, Ping welcomed me as a roommate where I lived with him and Greg Kirschen for several years. Greg provided innumerable conversations to me (and many others) over the years on transitioning into medical school, graduate school, dissertation writing, and challenges of the wards. Jesse Levine and Courtney Singleton taught me about lab opportunities at both Cold Spring Harbor laboratory and the Laufer Center for Quantitative for Physical and Quantitative Biology during hosted lunches and dinners for second visits, which played a large role in where I ended up for my Ph.D. lab. Lastly, Brinda Alagesan and Nick Schwartz became familiar faces through journal club, research rotations, and MSTP social events, where they gave back to the MSTP community such as answering many physician-scientist residency questions as shown below.

The leadership of the 2020 class was a distinctive feature that stood out at many MSTP (and medical school) events, including organizing the virtual match day and residency panel by Raja. They were often the first individuals to speak up during journal club or ask clinician-scientist questions about their careers, leading by example. They shared their own experiences of navigating grant writing (offering their own F30 applications), finding the right research mentor (PIs who now have had multiple successful MD-PhD students), tips for the wards (several obtained AOA & Golden Humanism Honor Society), and how to balance their personal interests such as marriage, marathon running, linguistics, and stand-up comedy.

Brinda Alagesan, MD, PhD. NYP Hosp-Weill Cornell Med Ctr, NY, Internal Med/Research

Ping He, MD, PhD. Rutgers-R W Johnson Medical School, NJ, Internal Medicine

Gregory Kirschen, MD, PhD. Johns Hopkins Hosp, MD, Obstetrics-Gynecology

Jesse Levine , MD, PhD. Baylor Coll Med-Houston, TX, Child Neurology/Neuroscience

Raja Pillai, MD, PhD. Baystate Medical Center & Childrens Hospital, Boston-MA, Peds-Prelim & Neurodevelopmental Disabilities

Bryce Schroeder, MD, PhD. Stony Brook Teaching Hospital, NY, Pediatrics

Nicholas Schwartz, MD, PhD. Pacific Med Center & Stanford Univ., CA, Med-Prelim/Neurology

Courtney Singleton, MD, PhD. Thomas Jefferson Univ, PA, Anesthesiology

The Stony Brook MSTP community will miss the class of 2020 but has only become better because of each of the graduating individuals who went through the program. Below we hear from the graduates on a residency panel as well as get a few answers to some last questions as they start their residency journeys across the country.

Residency Panel

1. Did you apply to categorical or PTSP or both? And what was the interview process like if you applied to both at the same institution?

2. When you applied to PSTP do you have to know which fellowship you want to go into?

3. How easy it is to change after you started the program?

4. If you apply to both categorical and PSTP but at the end you aren’t ready to commit to a fellowship or maybe you don’t want to do the fellowship at the same institution, can you rank the categorical higher than the PSTP and then match into categorical? There is probably internal communication within the institution between the PSTP and categorical so won’t the PSTP just rank you higher because they think you are a better fit because of your research or is it possible to rank the categorical program higher and do categorical at that institution?

5. A follow-up to that, for those who didn’t go into a PSTP, is that something that you can negotiate with the residency, and if so, how negotiable is that?

6. Where would one find a list of all of the U.S. PSTP?

7. How many programs did you apply to?

8. Can people comment on a rough budget, how much to save for applying to all the programs because it sounds like there is diversity in how many programs to apply, so what was a good range for you?

9. How important was it that you knew someone in the program? Do you suggest we reach out to people on our own? Also, some programs ask up to name people you want to be interviewed by, how do you choose the interviewers?

10. For IM PSTP, is the first two years of residency geared toward your future fellowship or do you get similar exposure but in a shorter period of time?

11. What were interviews like in general? What sort of questions did they ask?

12. Is the issue of prelim/advanced not a factor with PSTPs, i.e. do they guarantee both?

13. On interviews are the quantity/impactor factor of your papers grilled?

14. I also had a co-first author paper. I was curious how you answered that interview question?

15. Who did you get letters of recommendation from? Were letter requirements different if you applied to research-track residency?

16. How much relationship do you build before asking for the letter?

17. Should we email program directors before/after interviews to indicate interest?

18. How did you prepare your CBase account profile/ERAS application? What are some important points we should focus on?

19. How important is the timing of when you take Step 2 CK? Is it factored into receiving interview offers?

20. Which specialties are important to do aways?

21. How are things in CBase transferred to ERAS?

Rajapillai Pillai Concluding Thoughts:

1) When you came to Stony Brook, what were you interested in pursuing?

• When I came to Stony Brook, I was set on pursuing child psychiatry.

2) Why did you pick your residency specialty? Did it change from your initial interest?

• When I set up my rank list, I applied to both child psychiatry programs and neurodevelopmental disabilities programs. I interleaved them based on the individual program. Three of my top five were child psychiatry research track programs and two were neurodevelopmental disabilities programs. Basically after doing research and away rotations I realized that what I really wanted to focus on, in science and in medicine, is the monumental challenge of caring for the physical and emotional needs of people with developmental disabilities who can’t vocalize what is wrong on their own. Child psychiatry research track had the advantage of having more dedicated research time to develop that side of my career, but neurodevelopmental disabilities had the advantage of really understanding these disorders from a multidisciplinary level—pediatric, neurologic, and psychiatric—that child psychiatry alone might miss in this population.

3) What attracted you to the particular residency program you will be starting soon?

• Boston Children’s Hospital had a few things going for it. First, I really liked the people there and the community seemed more my type of people than other NDD programs I had looked at. Second, they were pretty flexible in letting me get additional training in psychiatry, so this is probably the closest I can get to having my cake and eating it as well. Boston is also a reasonable distance from my family in upstate New York, and when my girlfriend matches to residency there will be plenty of options for her in that city. Of course, before that I will be doing two years of general pediatrics at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield Massachusetts, which was also an important part of my decision. I’ll be the first NDD-bound resident there, so there’s room for me to shape the program somewhat. Also the people there are really genuinely kind people.

4) Any anecdotes from your time at Stony Brook you would like to share.

• Oh boy. There’s a lot. I’ll say outright that from Kindergarten on, Stony Brook was by far my favorite phase of my education. The mentors I’ve had here are the best and closest I’ve had, and I have at least 10 or so people that I know will be friends for life. As for anecdotes, well, I tend to think back to my preclinical extracurriculars, such as writing and filming Law and Order: SBU for Evening of the Arts, performing children’s plays with other students (including several MSTP students!), and experiencing the delightful quirks of all the interesting people I’ve met here. You’ll have to contact me separately for specific anecdotes.

5) Any comments on setting up or navigating the Zoom match day as a unique and innovative way of dealing with current events.

• So I’ll be honest—being the point person for setting up Match Day was actually really stressful. There would be impromptu meetings for testing which ended up taking quite a few hours each day, and things were moving so quickly that I had to be in constant contact and missing a message led to quite a bit of stress. I honestly wasn’t sure if it would be worth it, but I’m happy to say that I was wrong. For a large percentage of students there’s something magical about match day and being able to revel in other peoples’ celebration and share your own news is really quite special, even if it is a new medium.

Greg Kirschen Concluding Thoughts:

1) When you came to Stony Brook, what were you interested in pursuing?

• Neurology or endocrinology

2) Why did you pick your residency specialty? Did it change from your initial interest?

• Interest in surgery, pregnancy research, women’s physical and mental health, endocrinology

3) What attracted you to the particular residency program you will be starting soon?

• Reputation, education-focused, strong mentorship and alumni success

4) Any statements about your time at Stony Brook you would like to share.

• 8 years flew by. If I had to pick, I’d say I still feel like an MS2 internally.

5) Any comments on setting up or navigating the Zoom match day as a unique and innovative way of dealing with current events.

• I thought it was well done and still felt special.

Nick Schwartz Concluding Thoughts:

1) When you came to Stony Brook, what were you interested in pursuing?

• The Stony Brook MSTP benefits from longstanding strong leadership and institutional support. SBU attracted me with its tremendous breadth of research opportunities with an entire university and CSHL in addition to clinical department labs. Eight years later, I still hope to translate discoveries in the lab to treat neural disease.

2) Why did you pick your residency specialty? Did it change from your initial interest?

• Neurology is the most interesting field, duh! It’s the perfect mix of with diseases that affect our personhood, clinically playing detective with the latest advances in technology and most old-school nuanced physical exam maneuvers, and a constantly evolving field integrated with research prime for an explosion of therapies. If you are interested, please don’t hesitate to reach out!

3) What attracted you to the particular residency program you will be starting soon?

• Stanford had the perfect mix of basic/translational/clinical research, clinical training, and a great program culture in an area with amazing weather, great off-day getaways, and a diverse population. Also the hospital was 3 days old when I visited and really seemed like an incredible place to work. Silicon Valley was the perfect location for my partner who is interested in the start-up/venture capital world. CPMC also has a great culture and reputation for clinical care and training and I’m loving being in SF for a year before moving to Silicon Valley.

4) Any statements about your time at Stony Brook you would like to share.

• Seawolf for life! I really valued all the impromptu conversations I had with everyone in this program, really facilitated by having so many labs adjacent to the hospital. These covered topics from everything from our struggles in lab and returning to the clinic, the effects of NIMBYism in Long Island, and the musical catalog of Curren$y. Also shout-out to MSTP Mondays, hope those continue!

5) Any comments on setting up or navigating the Zoom match day as a unique and innovative way of dealing with current events.

• It was great for the school and Raja to work out a solution in a short time span. My roommates (including none other than Jay) threw a party for me with an envelope opening with a printed letter, cake, and pizza. Of course I had dreamed of a letter opening ceremony with my family and close friends at the SOM, but it was a terrific short-term solution in the midst of an evolving health crisis and a moment I’ll really cherish for the rest of my life.

Tyler Guinn, PhD, recently graduated from his PhD in Biomedical Engineering and returned to MS3. He received the 2020 President’s Award to Distinguished Doctoral Students and he is interviewed in this newsletter.

Saturday, October 12^th, Students and faculty convened for the 38th annual Medical Scientist Training Program Retreat at the scenic Sunwood Estates.

The day began with a “state of the union” address by Director Mike Frohman, MD/PhD, who thanked everyone for their part in securing a T32 training grant renewal this year. Dr. Frohman also shared feedback from the NIH evaluators. Grant reviewers praised the MSTP curriculum for emphasizing science communication by including Alan Alda courses and workshops. They were also impressed by students’ publication record, which is on average 5 publications including 2.5 first author papers per trainee.

For this year’s guest speaker, the MSTP invited Dr. Mark Sands, MD/MBA/FACR, Chief Medical Officer at Stony Brook University Hospital. Dr. Sands gave a talk on the burnout epidemic among medical professionals titled, “Stress and Physician (Scientist) burnout: How to stay lit!” The workshop included a brief history of the medical profession, including major health policy changes and technological innovations in patient data and privacy that have exacerbated physician overwork and burnout. Dr. Sands led a discussion about sources of stress among medical and graduate students before offering strategies for managing stress and preventing burnout. Key recommendations included increasing self-awareness, practicing mindfulness, and meditation.

Throughout the morning and afternoon, the 3^rd-, 4^th-, and 5^th-year (GS3-5) MSTP trainees gave research talks. Talks from doctoral candidates Kelvin Chan, Danielle Fassler, Tyler Guinn, Michael Motley, Rachel Kery, Michael Li, and Mikhail Gurevich represented a diverse range of topics in neuroscience, cancer, immunology, genetics and pharmacology. The Best Talk Prize was awarded to Rachel Kery (GS4, Shaoyu Ge Lab) for her talk titled, “Untangling the Cell Type-Specific Projections of the Zone of Uncertainty.” Soon-to-be-doctor Kery wowed the audience with a tour of the poorly-understood zona incerta, featuring beautiful brain maps and exciting new tools for neuronal labeling that she has developed for her dissertation work. Junior trainees participated in a poster session attended by faculty and peers. Aziz Rangwala (GS1, Markus Seeliger Lab) and Alex Larkin (GS2, Ben Martin Lab) both won prizes for Best Poster.

The final activity of the day was a Breakout Session, where small groups of students brainstormed how to improve the MSTP community and boost participation. At the end of the session, each group reported their ideas for strengthening the MSTP to the student body. Students suggested instituting a formal student government and implementing an MSTP guidebook or wiki page to improve communication and resource sharing between cohorts. Since the retreat, students have already begun writing an MSTP wiki, a project spearheaded by MS2 Camelia Zheng.

Special thanks to Program Administrator Alison Gibbons for organizing a successful event!

(written by Nuri Kim)

As forever students (many of us now entering 18^th grade and counting), August brings equal parts sadness as the days begin to shorten and excitement at the prospect of a new school year. A fresh chance to impress with a new wardrobe, top the quartile rank or wow the lab with data amassed while the PI was away on summer vacation. With a powerhouse new class of MS1s arriving to campus, Stony Brook MSTP had all the more reason to be excited for the fall 2019 semester to commence. The successful NIH training grant review allowed us to welcome a class of 10 brilliant students, with diverse backgrounds, research interests and passions. After a grueling interview season, we are grateful they put their faith in Stony Brook and are excited they are joining our community. Isabel Sakarin, Jakub Kaczmarzyk, Lucia Yang, Steven Lewis, Yunyoung Kim, Christopher Ashdown, Santiago Espinosa, Jordan Pearson, Ian Outhwaite and Joseph Bae have survived their first challenging block of medical school and are settling into Long Island life. To learn more about our fascinating new friends, I pestered them with question all month long. Read on to discover who worked as TV actor, who plays the tuba, who shares their genetic code with another human and much more! Welcome MS1s, we are so glad you are here and are all eagerly looking forward to many years of collaboration and friendship.

Isabel Sakarin (Vassar College)

Fun Fact: I am a twin!

Research Interests: In the broadest sense, I am interested in molecular mechanisms of disease. I’ve had a wide range of research experiences; I’ve used tissue engineering to model tumors in vitro, used confocal microscopy to study phagocytosis, developed a therapeutic solution for liver fibrosis, and used x-ray crystallography to understand the structural basis for the spread of antibiotic resistance. I am excited to explore the research at Stony Brook and to see how my medical education will shape my research.

Life Passions: I am very passionate about social justice and am looking for people here who are interested in doing advocacy and activism work with me!

Jakub Kaczmarzyk (Union College)

Fun Fact: I was born in Czestochowa, Poland and grew up in Nassau County. In 1997, I tripped up a set of stairs and lacerated my forehead. I got stitches above my left eyebrow, which was fortunate because years later, people would liken me to Harry Potter.

Research Interests: By studying the explainability of deep neural networks, I hope to develop clinical software tools that detect disease early, aid in diagnosis, and predict patient outcomes. Before coming to Stony Brook I worked as a research assistant at MIT in the McGovern Institute for Brain Research and the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. I worked on projects in brain magnetic resonance imaging, artificial intelligence, and reproducible science.

Life Passions: Come talk to me about coding! I am happy to help with what I know, and I want to learn more about how other people use computational methods in their research.

Lucia Yang (Univ. of California, Los Angeles)

Fun Fact: I went to Disneyland around 25 times this past year. I grew up in San Diego, California

Research Interests: My research background is in studying the molecular pathology and genetics of neurodegenerative disease, so I would love to stay in that realm. During my undergraduate years, I studied the molecular pathology of Huntington’s disease (HD) by elucidating how the mutant huntingtin protein affects cortical and striatal function and communication.

More about me: This summer I spent 3 weeks visiting family in China.

Steven Lewis (Yale University)

Fun Fact: I play the tuba!

Research Interest: I am hoping to study genetics/epigenetics and connect it to my research interest in the immune system and the development of autoimmunity and conversely, immune tolerance. Before coming to Stony Brook, I worked in an allergy and immunology lab at Yale Medical School studying blood transfusion rejection in a mouse model, focusing on innate immunity (macrophages and dendritic cells – the best immune cells!).

For Fun: I enjoy biking, running and hiking and am a huge Mets fan.

Yunyoung Kim (Vassar College)

Fun Fact: I grew up in Seoul, Korea.

Research Interests: I am interested in structural biology. Before coming to Stony Brook I completed a post-bac at the NIH.

More about me: I moved over 10 times across 3 countries in my lifetime.

Christopher Ashdown (Univ. of California, San Diego)

Fun Fact: During the summers while I was at college, I worked as a background actor (extra) in movies and TV shows. I have been on shows such as Modern Family, Shameless, and You’re the Worst.

Research Interests: While I am still somewhat undecided as to my future area of study, I am currently leaning towards work either in neuroscience or cancer biology. While at UCSD I worked on a project examining the effect of oscillating magnetic fields on in vitro cancer cells, with the goal of selectively lysing the cancer cell membrane, which was something that I thoroughly enjoyed. I am also very interested in biophysics in general, and love the wide range of clinical applications that such an interdisciplinary field allows.

Life Passions: I am very into British Premier League soccer- go West Ham United! All throughout undergrad I would get up at 7:30 a.m. every Saturday to watch my team play.

Santiago Espinosa (University of Richmond)

Fun Fact: I climbed Mt Fuji!

Research Interests: Currently, I am interested in the immunological aspects of the tumor microenvironment and the mechanisms behind immunotherapy treatments. My previous research has focused on identifying mechanosensitive proteins that can potentially alter gene expression by shuttling into the nucleus depending on the stiffness of the cellular environment. Before starting at Stony Brook, I worked as a research assistant at Rockefeller University in the Laboratory of Structural Biophysics and Mechanobiology.

More about me: I love cooking and playing soccer. I grew up in Mexico City and San Antonio, Texas.

Jordan Pearson (Univ. of Pennsylvania)

Fun Fact: I’m training for a marathon right now!

Research Interests: Since I have a background in neurodegenerative diseases, I would love to continue in that field of research, but I am also open to exploration in other areas of biomedicine including cancer and immunology. Between college and medical school, I researched Parkinson’s disease for two years at The Rockefeller University.

More about me: I’m originally from Columbia, Maryland.

Ian Outhwaite (Williams College)

Fun Fact: I am a cellist, and always on the lookout for chamber music opportunities!

Research Interest: I would like to study the choreography of the protein machines that build our bodies. I also would like to develop some familiarity with the process of de novo protein design, a burgeoning research space with creative potential. Before starting medical school, I worked under Dr. Stephen Long at Memorial Sloan Kettering as a research technician. When I wasn’t in lab I could be found hiking around New England, Arizona, Colorado, or between adjacent neighborhoods and my apartment when the F train would go down.

Passions: My favorite contemporary music is by The Killers, Darlingside, and The National.

Joseph Bae (Univ. of Southern California)

Fun Fact: I have beaten NBA star Lonzo Ball in several sports (in second grade 😉 )

Research Interests: I am very interested in the computational biology program here at Stony Brook, and I hope to study cancer biology. I have a master’s degree in Medical biophysics.

More about me: As a fairly new New Yorker, I’m very excited to work with you all for the next several years!

Young Jin Kim is a GS5/MSTP doctoral candidate in the Adrian Krainer Lab at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Young Jin studies how synthetic antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) can be designed to change post-transcriptional gene regulation. His dissertation work shows that ASOs may help treat hereditary diseases where harmful mutations cause defective splicing or degradation of messenger RNAs. Young Jin explores the therapeutic potential of ASOs in cystic fibrosis as well as the rare disease familial dysautonomia, which affects the development of the autonomic nervous system.

Young Jin sat down with us in October to chat about finding his way into genetics research by following his interests and staying motivated by keeping company with excellent scientists. He also discussed what studying rare diseases has taught him about the importance of science communication as well as his strategies for building resilience while on the research grind.

Name: Young Jin Kim

Hometown: Seoul, Korea

Dissertation Lab: Adrian Krainer Lab, Genetics Program

Clinical Interests: Pathology, medical genetics, or neurology with a focus on the neurodevelopmental disorders. “Anything that lets me focus on molecular biology and genetics.”

Tips for resilience: Find cheerleaders, avoid getting jaded, learn a good chokehold.

What were your early lab experiences like? Were you always looking at RNA?

No, initially, when I was an undergrad at SUNY Binghamton, I was in a lab that studied ion channels. Actually it’s kind of a full circle [to be working on ion channels again in cystic fibrosis]. My PI, Dr. Christof Grewer, studied the biophysics of sodium ion channels and peptide transporters. But my early research experiences were pretty depressing, I think, because they didn’t work out very well.

During summers, I studied how mutations in nuclear lamin genes cause muscular dystrophy in Dr. Howard Worman’s lab at Columbia University Medical Center. There, I had a mix of success and failures. Fortunately, I published a second-author paper based on this experience.

How did you decide to pursue the MD/PhD despite discouraging results early on?

I came to Stony Brook as a regular MD candidate, but I ended up making a lot of friends in the MD/PhD program like Ping [He], Nick Schwartz and Alex Jares (MSTP MS4s). I was in anatomy group with Ping, Nick and Alex, so we had a lot of interactions and being around MD/PhDs helps you maintain a certain mindset.

Then the summer after first year, I did an internship at an HHMI lab in Duke. I worked in the Van Bennett Lab, studying ankyrin, an ancient family of membrane-adaptor proteins that’s important for all sorts of things [and are implicated in channelopathies].

After second year, I took a year off of medical school to do the HHMI Medical Research Fellows Program. I worked in Dr. Iva Greenwald’s lab at Columbia University that studies C.elegans genetics. This was a really important experience because I got to interact with a lot of different scientists who were doing super cool things. And the project that I did there—I did everything I could do: tons of cloning, a lot of hours in the microscopy room—but, again, the project didn’t pan out very well.

But [despite not getting good results,] it was fun to interact with scientists, and I found the process of research interesting, so I kept at it.

After that exposure, when I told my wife (who was my girlfriend at the time) that I wanted to do the MD/PhD, she was like, “What! What are you talking about!”

Haha!

No, she was actually very encouraging!

In the Krainer Lab, you’re working on interventions for cystic fibrosis and familial dysautonomia, but at a genetic, transcript-level approach. It seems like you could take expertise in many different directions clinically speaking, toward many different congenital conditions. How does your dissertation work bear on your clinical interests?

Recently I went to a small consortium hosted by the Familial Dysautonomia Foundation, and there I got to meet some physician scientists who do clinical trials also. I had never really put a lot of thought into doing clinical studies, but doing the actual science with the data coming from patient – I think that’s very interesting also.

For a long time now, I have found the RNA and molecular biology underlying different diseases more interesting [than their clinical aspects], so I never had a particular specialty in mind. If the underlying biology is interesting, that’s where I would like to go.

Could you expand a little more on some of attraction and advantages—or challenges—you perceive in doing clinical research?

If you want to be a physician scientist who does translational work [in the clinic], I think you need some level of skill in scicomm or science communication, so that when you try to convince patients to engage in your clinical trial, you can convince them that it’s important. If you can’t communicate how the drug works, let’s say, and the benefits or risks that are associated with it, how the drug can ultimately benefit the patients and the disease community overall…. It’s really going to be hard for the patients to engage.

The Familial Dysautonomia Foundation is a great example…. There is a very small patient community and because of that, the participation of every one of them is crucial. Regardless of the size of the patient population, if you want to bring people to a translational study, you need to be able to engage the patients. But the importance of scientific communication is so immense for familial dysautonomia. One of the big things that the Foundation and the scientific community around familial dysautonomia think about all the time is how are they going to get the message out to the public and how are they going to encourage participation [in clinical studies].

And even in the case of Spinraza, [an FDA-approved ASO for spinal muscular atrophy], there’s been a lot of effort by the SMA Foundation improve awareness about the disease, and this had a tremendous impact on, say, getting the drug covered by insurance companies. So if we’re just talking about the very basic molecular biology, you don’t have to communicate all of that to the public, but if you’re going to move something forward in the clinic, you’re going to need that skill set.

Earlier in the interview, you mentioned a couple times where your research “didn’t pan out well.” What were some ways you overcame the discouragement of projects not panning out as expected?

I think I learned not to take myself too seriously.

What was a time you took yourself too seriously?

You know, like… when your experiment doesn’t work – but that was almost every day for the first year and a half!

What was it like for the first year and a half?

Awful. I was trying to identify ASOs that can do what I wanted them to do, and I just couldn’t do it. Some days you even know this experiment is not going to work, and you look at your data, and you’re like, “Yay, it didn’t work!” Like I was fortunetelling, almost.

But I think in those moments, when you haven’t been punched in the face by the data that many times yet, I think you need some people around you to help you to keep going and stand up. It’s really hard to nurture that [resilience] by yourself when you’re so young. You need people who will be like a personal trainer to encourage you from the side, telling you, “Yeah! You can do it!”

Who were some of your “personal trainers”?

My wife. She is unconditionally saying, “Oh yeah, it’s fine, you’re doing a great job.” I mean, sometimes, she might say it just because she needs to say it, right? But even those kinds of encouragement all help.

In the beginning, you need some nurturing from people. It’s always better to hear it from a senior person whose opinions you care about. It’s good to have some nurturing communication. From there, you start to grow thicker skin, and you can deal with failure a little bit better.

Did your PI or other folks in your lab play that role for you?

My PI is a nice person. He is encouraging, but he’s not the cheerleader type. He’ll say things more like, “Believe in it, and keep working on it.” He doesn’t put you down for experiments that didn’t work, but he doesn’t like to hype up things. He’s a very honest person. So he’s not going to promise that it’s going to work no matter what. He gives a very real analysis of what’s likely. He’s a firm foundation where you can feel that, “if I just continue it will be okay.”

But that’s not always enough to get you out of bed the next day [after a failed experiment] and into lab. Friends like Tomoki Nomaguchi [MSTP graduating class of 2018] were helpful. He was very encouraging.

Especially in the beginning it’s important to quickly identify people you can trust, and I think it’s completely fair for you to expect some nurturing from them. And then you later pay back.

How have you paid back?

I try to be as encouraging as possible without just saying things. Stony Brook MSTP students are very smart, so I don’t have to try to prove that they’re good students. I just need to remind them that they’re good. It can be really hard to remind yourself that when you’re busy beating yourself up and taking yourself so seriously—I mean, 90% of our experiments fail, so we deal with it every day… including me. But then someone – either you or someone else – is going to have to help you stay encouraged and stay healthy.

When you say “you or someone else” needs to help you stay healthy and resilient, apart from finding a good support base, what are some other ways you’ve helped yourself? Are there certain good habits you’ve maintained?

I picked up a new hobby in medical school. That was Brazilian jujitsu.

Did you do martial arts before?

I started Taekwondo when I was four… maybe three. And I kept doing that. And then I did like Aikido for some time….

Do you just have multiple black belts in different martial arts?

… Kind of.

So modest! All right, then! For someone who had already mastered Taekwondo, why switch to Brazilian Jujitsu? What was different about it?

The initial interest was just, “Oh, it’s cool.” [I knew of it as] the foundation of all mixed martial arts, but I’d never tried it. Then one day, I just decided to try it in first year of medical school. I’d started by the time we were leaning about the brachial plexus [in anatomy] — I remember that because I’d gotten a little injury from jujitsu, and I could kind of trace the nerves along the limb and stuff like that…

What’s super different about jujitsu is that it simulates aggressive scenarios as realistically as it gets in a controlled setting.  That sort of scenario where someone’s actually trying to hurt you is really hard to simulate in a lot of [other] sports martial arts. But in jujitsu, either someone’s actively trying to take a limb or they’re trying to choke you out. Because that’s the way a match ends; there’s match time, but it can also go on and on until someone—

Have you ever taken a limb??

I never… I mean, yes, of course? But the limb is still on the person! It’s just an expression‼

So we’re trying to do joint locks or chokes—that’s how a submission occurs. But in addition to that, the physical interaction is very aggressive. Initially, I was not able to manage that type of situation. You get an adrenaline rush because your fight or flight engages right away, and when you do that, you tire out super fast. And so my first day, I got choked out and arm barred by a girl who was like five feet tall—much smaller than me—and I was throwing up by the end of the class. I was like, “Ugh, this is horrible. Sign me up.”

What came out of that was I learned to manage any kind of stressful situation in research. You learn how to manage stress a little bit better.

So do you ever choke out your laptop or—

No. But also when I get really upset, I can release that aggression in a controlled manner, with a trained partner where there’s mutual trust. So I think that was good. Anything that helps you to release your stress is good.

And for these kinds of activities, it’s a form of dynamic meditation. You’re actively moving but you’re so focused in that particular moment that it’s almost like meditating. You forget about the stuff that didn’t work in the lab, and you can just focus on the moment, and you feel much better.

If you can find anything like that, you should do it; it doesn’t have to be jujitsu.

Is there anything else you’d like to tell the MSTP community – general warnings or advice or if you have some sort of personal motto?

At the PhD stage, the most important thing is to not be so jaded and find whichever way you can to not be jaded. It’s essentially a learning experience, right?

I want to be clear that I don’t mean we have complete control over whether we want to be jaded or not. The environment can drain us of enthusiasm and make us tired. I want to express that we have to monitor ourselves, and find ways to get out of it if we do [get jaded].

What does it look like to be jaded?

You start thinking everything is bullshit, and you lose interest in everything. Maybe your drive to learn gets lower and lower. You see a lot of smart people as you’re doing the MD-PhD, and I think that’s another factor that may make you more jaded—like, “What am I doing? That person is publishing in [Cell, Nature, Science] journals, and I’m still working on whatever.” But their project is not your project. The question you’re pursuing is different from any other. And after some years in your research, you’re probably the only one who can do what you do – or maybe a very small handful of people who know how to do what you do. You need to remind yourself that and continue to learn to do things.

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.