Help eradicate plant blindness as students explore plant biology concepts and hands-on activities related to a hamburger. This quick, classroom-ready page (PDF) is ideally suited for middle grade students. The back of the sheet lists the plants needed to make a burger, from barley to wheat!
How Many Plants in a Hamburger?
This resource is also available in Spanish and Italian:
NatureJobs has a series of articles to help you find and get the perfect postdoc.
Topics include:
Part 1: Insights, options, careers
Part 3: The plight of the postdoc
Advice from scientists on how to find a postdoc position, ranging from finding opportunities to crafting your CV to interviewing.
Applying for a postdoc job? Here are 18 tips for a successful application
This article was originally published on Women in STEMM Australia. Read the original article
Trainees in science often express the need for ‘a mentor’. What does this mean and what should mentees and mentors expect?
What is a mentor? The Macquarie dictionary definition is ‘a wise and trusted counsellor’. A mentor is someone with more experience, often older (although not always), who helps and guides another individual’s development. This may be to help do a job more effectively, develop a specific skill and/or progress in their career – often without any personal gain for the mentor. Scientists often retrospectively recognise they were mentored throughout their career; they just describe mentors and mentoring by other names.
What is mentoring? Many students, early career researchers and established investigators are not entirely sure what mentoring means – and expectations can vary. Mentoring continues throughout one’s career, at every level. To mentor and be mentored is not only to pass on knowledge gained over a lifetime, but to also share wisdom from past mistakes and provide guidance for future decisions. In science, the benefits of mentoring are becoming more widely recognised and valued. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US recognises proficient mentors as part of their grant evaluation process and actively encourages the practice through Mentored K Awards. These awards transition young investigators to independence under the mentorship of a senior investigator. The PhD and postdoctoral phase is one of ongoing education and training, with the ultimate goal of scientific independence. It is therefore essential that early career researchers identify one or more mentors early in their career and actively establish positive mentoring relationships.
Who should be your mentor? Early career researchers typically seek mentoring from people with more experience or different experiences. These can include senior investigators within their institution particularly those who have won fellowships and/or grants. This may be their supervisor, but for a variety of reasons this is not always the case. Supervisors have an incentive to mentor their students, fellows and staff since they have invested in them, but they are also captive to their own experiences and can sometimes have a conflict of interest. This is why it is important to consider a mentor outside your institution, such as investigators with whom you have served on committees or met at conferences. Developing a good rapport with a mentor is a plus, particularly for an ongoing mentoring relationship, but this is not always essential. Occasional mentorship from a ‘straight-talking’ individual who doesn’t know you well can provide advice with reduced risk of bias; however, they may not fully appreciate your situation.
Women in science sometimes feel they ‘should’ be mentored by another woman; however, all scientists are well-placed to mentor women (and men!). Diversity within the ranks of senior faculty will benefit everyone and contribute to a productive mentoring and research environment. With fewer women scientists in senior positions, however, it is essential women be willing to engage with mentors of both genders. In the US, Women in Biomedical Careers sponsors national workshops on mentoring women in biomedical careers and best practices for sustaining career success. Several leading scientific bodies in Australia also recognise the need to support women in science more effectively, including effective mentoring for women scientists. The National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Academy of Science have publicly endorsed such initiatives in the last two years.
A mentor we all have, but don’t always realise we have, is the peer mentor. These are friends and colleagues at the same stage of their career and lives as you. Peers can bounce ideas, share their experiences and advice they have received and, importantly, celebrate your successes!
Words describing a good mentor include respectful, honest, positive, enthusiastic, experienced, optimistic, realistic, encouraging, strategic, supportive, sensitive and ‘human’. In an informal survey by the authors of more than 150 postdoctoral fellows in the Parkville Precinct (Melbourne), the number one word associated with good mentoring was respect. Mentees want to feel respected both in a personal and in a professional sense. This was especially important to more reserved individuals and those from a different cultural background or who identified strongly with a minority group. The second most common word was empowering. One fellow said ‘I want a mentor who helps me to help myself.’ A good mentor will want to see you progress in your career and will enjoy seeing you fulfil your goals and succeed in the future.
How do you find a mentor? Mentoring is often informal, subtle and non-exclusive and is easier to get if you are engaged in a range of activities such as committees and social events. It is important to talk to your colleagues – who mentors them? How did they meet? Who do they recommend? Word of mouth is a powerful thing!
Before seeking a mentor, it is important to self-evaluate – ascertain the areas in which you require mentoring. Critically examine your current situation and be pragmatic about your strengths and weaknesses. Needs differ between individuals, but may include public speaking, scientific writing, negotiating skills, teaching, grant-writing, priority setting, communicating your research, strategic planning or determining what you need to achieve to be competitive in the next stage of your career.
Developing professional networking skills is essential. If you are seeking a mentor in a particular field or career, then aim to meet people who are already where you want to be – attend symposia, seminars, conferences and networking events.
Some organisations have formal mentoring programs. Such programs are often under-utilised and under-valued. Yet they are an excellent avenue to mentors who are prepared to devote time and energy in facilitating the professional development of those around them. A mentoring program is particularly useful if you are shy, lack confidence, have moved interstate/internationally or simply do not know where to begin.
Once you have a mentor – what then? Finding a mentor is not that difficult, but after the initial connection, it can sometimes feel a bit ‘awkward’ – especially if the mentor is someone you do not know well or see often. As for any relationship, maintaining a healthy mentoring relationship takes time and effort. Boundaries and expectations are best discussed at the first meeting, such as where and how often you will meet, whether you are both comfortable with a formal/informal setting or a mix of both. ‘Doing coffee’ provides a relaxed setting, but is not always suitable for difficult or confidential conversations. Using technology can work well (email, text and/or social media), but only if your mentor welcomes this interaction.
SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE
Mentor reflections
Learning a bit about students as “people” (their personal and professional situation without over-stepping boundaries) is a good basis for ongoing discussions. It is important for me to provide positive feedback and constructive criticism without passing judgement. Since it is easy to forget what it was like being a student, I try to put myself in their shoes. Sharing my own experiences and mistakes can reassure mentees they are not alone, but it isn’t always helpful to their situation, since everyone’s experiences and circumstances are different. With this in mind, I discuss the options, the pros/cons but always state “it is up to you”. Logistically speaking, I check if a mentee requires a confidential meeting, since this is best done in a more formal setting. If a mentee seems to be struggling with their physical or mental health – I encourage them to seek support and point them in the right direction, especially if it is something beyond my capabilities or expertise. (MVEG)
I enjoy passing on the knowledge and experience I have gained during my career to students and peers. It is important to understand everyone is different and their needs and expectations will vary. When mentoring students I have found it best to first discuss their expectations, future career aspirations and past experience. Mentoring can vary greatly and may involve providing technical advice (e.g. problem solving, experimental design, data interpretation, presentations, scientific writing) or advising about career options (e.g. choosing the best lab to do a postdoctoral fellowship and future career goals). There will invariably be occasions when you are asked for advice about a more personal issue (e.g. problems with other lab members or a supervisor). This can be delicate and whether you advise or re-direct is really up to you. If you advise, remember to consider the other person’s perspective and always be positive (often the situation is not as bad as it seems). Science is tough and researchers at all career stages can sometimes feel a bit ‘blue’. This is when your advice as a mentor can be truly appreciated. Carefully listen to your mentee’s concerns. If you are unable to advise, recommend others who are qualified to assist. Always remember that it is up to the mentee to decide whether they wish to take your advice (and don’t be offended if they don’t!). (CAG)
Mentee reflections
The truth can sometimes be difficult to take; however, we must remember it is “constructive criticism”. Your mentor wants to help you, particularly if they will not benefit at all should you take action on their advice. No matter the mentor, I aim to be open to constructive criticism. I believe there is something I can learn from everyone. Committee service has allowed me to develop a ‘mentoring team’. Some mentors I meet regularly (e.g. each month), others less often – and one only when I need the “hard word”. Peer mentoring is some of the most valuable mentoring I have received to date, especially with juggling family and career responsibilities. I haven’t always taken advice and some mentors can actually give very poor advice. Getting involved in non-research activities like fund-raising, policy development and science communication has exposed me to talented professionals who openly share their advice and skills – mentoring by osmosis! All of which has directly benefited my research career. I maintain a healthy work-life balance, but most importantly, I have a dream. (MVEG)
I have had a number of supervisors who have provided invaluable advice and support at different times in my career. I have come to appreciate their candour and the advantages of looking at issues from a different perspective. However, I have sometimes been surprised by the lack of gender and ethnic diversity within senior faculty in universities and research institutions, especially within Australia. For this reason it can be difficult to find a mentor who fully understands the issues faced by those of a different gender or ethnic background. For example, assertive women can sometimes be considered “aggressive”, while people from a conservative culture, a different ethnic background or overseas, can sometimes be criticised for lacking assertiveness if they do not openly question things or share their opinions unasked. I have always valued an intuitive mentor who is sensitive to such issues. (CAG)
What can you do to make the most of mentoring? Mentoring is not a one-way street. You have to give as much as you hope to received – if not more. Maintain an individual development plan that involves honest self-assessment and goal setting. Use this as the basis for discussion with your mentor. Describe your career aspirations and devise a strategy to attain your professional goals. Expect the unexpected – major decision may need to be made quick and a positive ‘can do’ attitude will help. As scientists, we are trained to think critically and be sceptical in our research. This should not equate to cynicism or negativity in all we do or say! Be proactive and harness your initiative. It is your career – take it where you want it to go!
What is the difference between mentoring and sponsorship? Sometimes senior investigators will refer to a long-term mentor who has provided invaluable advice at every career transition, helped them meet the right people at the right time, put their names forward for conference – someone who advocated and promoted their talent both within their organisation and more broadly. This is ‘sponsorship’ and it has proven successful in advancing the careers of women in the corporate sector and in medicine. While every ‘sponsor’ is a mentor; not every mentor can/will sponsor every mentee – and it should not be expected.
How can organisations facilitate mentoring? Quality mentoring is central to the support and training of a diverse, well-educated scientific workforce. The culture of any research organisaton impacts on the morale of its students and staff. Dr Jennifer de Vries argues that viewing mentoring through a ‘bifocal lens’ (where organisational culture inherently fosters the professional development of its staff) increases productivity and yields a better return on investment. The NIH has developed mentoring guidelines and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute supported the Entering Mentoring seminar developed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, US. All group leaders attend this as part of their introduction to scientific teaching, and it is widely shared. Training investigators to mentor minority groups has been recommended (Jeste et al., Am. J. Public Health, 2009). In Australia, Monash University has a successful Alumni-Student Mentoring Program while the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute encourages informal, ‘organic’ interactions through annual poster symposia, regular seminars and social events.
Is mentoring worth it? The inherent value of mentoring becomes clear when as individuals and as organisations, we place both ourselves and our emerging scientific leaders in the best position to thrive and excel in education, research and innovation, to benefit Australia’s future health and economy.
About the authors:
Kara Perrow (nee Vine), University of Wollongong; Amy Wyatt, University of Wollongong, and Martina Sanderson-Smith, University of Wollongong
As children we are encouraged to dream big, and many young people – including young women and girls – aspire to a career in science.
While there are role models at the top tiers of science combating gender bias, the jump from PhD student to lead researcher may at first seem insurmountable for many women.
Students considering a career in science are told that competition for research funding is fierce, giving rise to short-term contracts and job insecurity. This sees scientists working overtime and weekends and that makes it harder to succeed if you are a female scientist and mother.
This outlook can leave students questioning their future in science. But there is a way to make a successful and rewarding career in science. Our own personal stories demonstrate this.
When Amy Wyatt completed her PhD at the University of Wollongong (UOW), she looked abroad to answer the question of where to next? Amy tested out an alternative career in science communication but returned to academia because the pull of discovery in science was too exciting to ignore.
A fellowship sent Amy to Cambridge, UK, for two years and then back to UOW. With her science communication skills, Amy won the UOW iAccelerate pitch competition in 2015, a small grant competition for innovative ideas, before securing federal funding.
Martina also ventured overseas after her PhD to a complete postdoctoral stint in Germany, and later the United States. She too decided to return to UOW. She felt this was a good environment in which to establish her independence, rather than be in the shadow of more senior, well-established researchers in her field. A key factor was the support she received from her PhD supervisor, who advocated for Martina as she set up her own research group.
Kara worked with researchers in Sweden and Denmark before taking a postdoctoral fellowship at her hometown university, UOW. She chose to further her career alongside neuroscientists, chemists and materials scientists to build new collaborations beyond her realm of cancer biology and expand her program of research in drug targeting and delivery.
As three early-career researchers, we have guided students through their undergraduate and PhD studies, many of whom are promising scientists but they are doubtful that they will find a way to establish themselves as independent researchers.
If you, or someone you know, is considering a career in science, here are some important lessons we have learnt in how to make it work.
Gender equity is a particularly sticky issue for science. The choice to raise a family may be judged as a disruption to research output when scientists are assessed for funding. This is the point where many women choose to leave academic careers. The global nature of science also necessitates regular long distance travel, which is difficult for those with family responsibilities.
A strong local support network can make the task of balancing young children and the demands of research more manageable. Family networks can offer assistance when travel or extended work hours are called for and a supportive, collegiate ethos between co-workers can encourage and boost young postdocs.
Small institutional grants offered by universities to early-career researchers can provide funding to kick-start research when returning from parental leave.
Small grants also allow researchers to develop new projects and obtain preliminary results to be competitive in major funding schemes. For Amy, who is the lead investigator on a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant on Alzheimer’s disease, internal funding allows her to pursue side projects and build a broad research program.
A research institute with a healthy diversity of sciences can help young scientists make their mark through innovative projects. In our experience, when research diversity is paired with a collegial atmosphere that has researchers swapping ideas over coffee, unexpected collaborations can be fostered.
In her research, Kara designs drug delivery platforms to make sure that cancer drugs reach their target by encasing drugs in protective lipids that seek out breast cancer or immune cells, or producing drug-loaded scaffolds to implant for pancreatic cancer. Kara happens to share an office and work with a motor neurone disease (MND) research fellow, Justin Yerbury.
Combining their expertise in the fields of drug delivery and neuroscience, Kara and Justin won an ambitious grant from the US Department of Defense to improve drug delivery to the brain for MND. The idea for this research came about on a social mountain bike trip with Wollongong alumnus and friend, Darren Saunders.
Networking is fundamental to building a career in science so that researchers can exchange ideas and call upon advisers. Finding an effective mentor is important for up-and-coming researchers and their professional development.
But finding someone who is prepared to advocate on your behalf is invaluable. To have someone nominate them for opportunities gives emerging scientists the confidence to back themselves.
For Martina, it was her PhD supervisor who put her name forward when approached by international collaborators and said that she was the best person to speak to. Work from these collaborations led to her NHMRC project grant successes to study Group A Streptococcal bacterial infections. Martina now follows suit as a supervisor to raise the profiles of her students and postdocs.
This can be challenging, as the pervading message to early-career scientists is that you have to promote yourself, but we admire the leaders who build up those around them.
Diversity in the leaders that we promote can reveal new pathways for young scientists.
Advancing a career in science is challenging, especially for women. But it can also be deeply rewarding. We hope our experiences, and the lessons we learnt from them, can encourage and assist other young women to embark on a career of discovery in the sciences.
Clare Watson, research assistant and science writer at the University of Wollongong, assisted in the production of this article.
Kara Perrow (nee Vine), Research Fellow and Group Leader of the Targeted Therapeutics Research Laboratory, University of Wollongong; Amy Wyatt, Senior Research Fellow, University of Wollongong, and Martina Sanderson-Smith, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Microbiology, University of Wollongong
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Recently, we’ve been profiling first authors of Plant Cell papers that are selected for In Brief summaries. Here are the first-author profiles from the December issue of The Plant Cell. Michael Sandmann, featured first author of Targeting of A. thaliana KNL2 to centromeres depends on the conserved CENPC-k motif in its C-terminus Current Position: PhD […]
BY CHRISTOS NOUTSOS, postdoc at Cold Spring Harbor Labs (first published May 2012)
Robert Martienssen. Photo by Kathy Kmonicek/AP, © HHMI.
CN: Thanks for sitting for this interview. Let’s start at the beginning. How did you become interested in biology? Which scientific fields attracted you the most?
RM: Like many molecular biologists, I was more interested in physics and chemistry as an undergraduate. However, I quickly realized that mathematics was a major component, and my mathematics wasn’t that hot. As a result, I pursued genetics, which still has an abstract, mathematical side to it that I fell in love with.
CN: Was there a specific adviser or scientist who inspired you to pursue a career in science?
RM: That’s a very difficult question. Obviously, my PhD adviser, David Baulcombe, is a very important person for me. But as an undergraduate, I read genetics at Cambridge, and Mike Ashburner was a really important inspiration for me at the time and very much since then. His appreciation for the subject is really unique, and he’s quite a character as well! He probably led me on this path more than anyone else!
Later on, obviously, Barbara McClintock’s work was a huge inspiration to all of us. I learned about transposons first in genetics undergraduate classes and was really inspired by the whole area. It was a privilege to meet her when I first came to Cold Spring Harbor 10 years later. It was remarkable to be able to spend about three years with her before she died, and I got to know her pretty well. She taught me a lot, not just about science but also about scientists. She was a tremendous inspiration.
CN: If you had a chance to redo your graduate student or early postgraduate years, would you do anything differently?
RM: This is so interesting. I did my PhD with David Baulcombe, who at the time was just starting his position at the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge. I was his first graduate student. He was working on a number of things, and I ended up working for my PhD on a transposable element we discovered in wheat. Transposons has been a theme of my research ever since.
At the same time, he was just beginning to work on viruses. At the time, I didn’t see viruses as particularly interesting. However, he and I have both speculated about what might have happened if I actually had chosen viruses instead of transposons. The very first experiment he did of significance on viral silencing was done when I was there, but by someone else in the lab. It was a really important experiment on virus satellites having a significant effect on silencing that implicated RNA. Of course, it took almost 15 years for small RNAs to be discovered, but we’ve both ended up working on small RNAs. In his case, mostly in viruses; in my case, mostly in transposons. But it all turns out to be the same thing. It’s an interesting thought as to what would have happened. But I’m still very happy that I ended up working on transposons, and I wouldn’t change that.
CN: When you graduated, research on characterizing a single gene was being reported in prestigious journals. Now you need a way to generate more data. What do you think of the amount and quality of work PhD students produce now?
RM: Technology has really moved on, obviously. It’s been an incredible ride the past 20 years, just thinking about sequencing, for example. I sequenced one gene, maybe two, for my PhD; now it’s about how many genomes you sequenced. I think it’s important to not get too wedded to the technology. What really matters is understanding, and sometimes you can understand a huge amount of biology through just a handful of genes or a single pathway. These days, it tends to be put in a much broader context, so understanding everything around that pathway or that phenomenon is now much more important. That’s really the big change, I think.
But getting insight into mechanisms still requires the same sort of deductive reasoning and logic that it always has, McClintock being a great example. Just look at what she was able to do with such limited tools (though don’t forget she was a fantastic experimentalist—her microscopy, for example). But the genetic logic she used is still absolutely viable today, and that sort of logic can still provide extraordinary insights into biology.
So it’s not just the huge amount of data that’s important. You can’t ignore it, and it’s no secret that informatics and the ability to handle and summarize large datasets in meaningful ways has become a key skill that I think all biologists entering the field now have to learn some aspects of. I think it’s impossible to do biology without understanding at least the principles of informatics.
CN: How do you compare research in genetics during the time when you were a PhD student to now, taking into consideration all the sequencing technologies?
RM: Well, certainly technology has changed dramatically in epigenetics. We can now routinely look genome-wide at all sorts of epigenetic marks, not only DNA methylation. When I was a graduate student, DNA methylation was pretty much the only widely accepted epigenetic mark. Now, of course, we have hundreds of histone modifications, not to mention all the noncoding RNAs and small RNAs. I think what’s interesting is that the principles behind epigenetics haven’t changed that much. We still know the importance of heritable changes that are not caused by DNA mutation.
They’re reversible, environmentally induced, and can be inherited through generations. All of that is still true. Some of the observations made by McClintock, Ed Coe, and R. A. Brink working in maize in the 1940s and 1950s are still principles we live by now. We just understand a lot more about the mechanism, and the technology has helped a lot with that.
CN: What advice would you give to educators to encourage young people to explore science and plant biology?
RM: That’s an excellent question, and a very important one. I think the appeal of science as a career is changing. We see this in applications to graduate schools in the United States. There are fewer American students who are interested in going on to a postgraduate degree.
I would say that in the early years, encouragement, confidence, excitement, and conveying the importance of science all matter. Young kids in school are very smart; they want to know what the most important things are. Emphasizing science and giving it the attention it deserves is half the battle.
Part of the problem that we’ve had in the past few years has been the emphasis on the economy. The disparity between scientists and other professions is something that should be addressed economically, and different countries have very different ways of addressing it.
Getting people excited about science from a sort of “inner sense” is the most important thing, I think. You’re not going to appeal to their pocketbooks; you’re going to appeal to their imagination and to the future. And don’t underestimate the importance of the arts and culture. The science fiction of today may be the science of tomorrow! It certainly plays a big role in promoting science.
There are lots of ways to get people excited aside from traditional lecturing. Involving kids in experiments early is a good thing. I remember being fascinated by chemistry sets when I was a child, and I think that’s still true of most kids. Getting them involved in DNA experiments early—why not? I think the DNA Learning Center has done an outstanding job of that. It’s really impressive. The kids love it!
I think plants are coming into their own. Plant biology is going to lead the way in the biology of this century.
SOURCE: Noutsos, C. (2012). Luminaries: Rob Martienssen. ASPB News 39(3):19–20. Reprinted by permission from ASPB.
February 1, 2017 profile of Elliot Meyerowitz from The Scientist. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48064/title/From-the-Ground-Up/
Here’s an excerpt:
“About 15 years ago, I gave a talk on plant development in a session focused on animal development at the American Society for Cell Biology meeting. Before I even got up on stage, about half of the 10,000 people in the audience started to walk out. That’s an example of animal scientists not having any interest in plants. And I don’t care that they learn from me necessarily, but I think if they were more open-minded about plant research, biology overall would benefit. I think a lot of people don’t realize that many things found in animals were first discovered in plants—viruses, the cytoskeleton, transposable elements, microRNAs. Of the three major theories in biology—on cells, genes, and evolution—the cell and gene theories originated from the study of plants.”
BY SUNIL KUMAR K R, ASPB Student Ambassador, University of Nebraska–Lincoln (@Sunil_husker) (Originally published January 2017)
Alexander von Humboldt Professor, Center for Plant Molecular Biology, University of Tübingen, GermanyMarja Timmermans began her scientific career at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) after completing her studies in the Netherlands and at Rutgers University and Yale University. In 2015, she joined the Center for Plant Molecular Biology at the University of Tubingen after being awarded Germany’s most prestigious international research award, the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship. Marja’s research focuses on developmental genetics, specifically on the formation and patterning of leaves. Her team has made several internationally acclaimed discoveries and explained key mechanisms behind leaf development and the role of mobile small RNAs in leaf polarity. She is one of the most highly respected plant geneticists in the world. She serves on the editorial board of several professional journals and on selection panels of organizations like the National Science Foundation and the Human Frontier Science Program.
What was your motivation for choosing plant science as a career?
Actually, the decision to seek a career in science came quite late. As a child, I dreamed of becoming a detective who solved crimes, like in the mysteries I used to read. Only because I was too young to join the police academy did I go for a bachelor’s degree in science. This was in the Netherlands, where I also worked for several years as a technician before deciding to move to the United States. That proved to be a key decision.Labs were different, less hierarchical than what I had experienced, and I became more integrated into the actual scientific process. This was exciting! Science became less of a job and more about applying logic, skills, and deductive reasoning to solve problems, just of a different nature than I had envisioned as a child. So I decided to pursue a PhD and a career in science. As for plants, after some experience with microbiology and mouse tissue culture, I knew I wanted to use genetics to study biology at the whole organismal level. Plants offered tremendous possibilities, and so I went for it.
Who or what influenced you the most in your early career to be the scientist you are today?
There is not just one person or event, but joining Tim Nelson’s lab at Yale University as a postdoc set the stage for my current research and likely also my mentoring style. He gave me tremendous freedom but could be counted on for advice. The plant group at Yale also provided a stimulating environment that simplified the transition into developmental biology for me. Colleagues were interactive, helpful, and constructively critical. It was perfect for me.
Please describe your journey from being an international student in the United States to becoming a successful independent scientific leader.
I’m not sure what to say. I don’t think there was anything particularly special about how my career developed. I loved what I did, worked hard, followed my ideas even when risky, listened carefully to advice, and took advantage of opportunities to interact with colleagues from all over the world. In addition, there was a bit of luck. The first leaf polarity mutants we cloned all showed connections to small RNAs. This was at a time when the RNAi and small RNA field was gaining tremendous importance. This work gave me visibility early in my career. Obviously, you still need to know what questions to ask and to be able to carve an interesting niche for yourself within a competitive field, but my career might have gone differently had the first polarity mutants turned out to be something else.
Do you see barriers for women in science? What are your suggestions to improve the situation?
Tough question, and not easily addressed in this short interview. Inequality manifests itself in many different ways, ranging from seemingly innocuous differences in the day-to-day interaction between colleagues, to real biases in hiring and promotion practices, to the perception of scientific quality. Improving the situation will take time. In particular,societal preconceptions that influence women’s personal decisions to pursue a career and that often unjustly come into play when women are considered for jobs, promotions, awards, and so forth are not easy to change. Studies have shown that family and other matters not directly related to science, even looks and personality, are far more likely to be brought up in discussions of female versus male candidates. Increasing the representation of women among faculty, on committees, and in other types of leadership positions will be essential, but I’m not a fan of quotas. Although I can see how these could speed up the process, they can have negative repercussions. This is 2017! There are many excellent female candidates for each of these functions, and likewise for opportunities such as invited speakers, keynote addresses, awards, and other occasions leading to visibility. The effort just needs to be made.
What experiences and training do you think are important for early career scientists?
As a scientist, you need to be a jack-of-all-trades. Early on, technical competence and the ability to easily adopt the latest techniques are essential. Equally important is to really know the system or biological process you are studying. The famous book about Barbara McClintock, A Feeling for the Organism by Evelyn Fox Keller (W. H. Freeman, 1983), captures that well. Think deeply and critically about your work. What are the data telling you, what not, and how exactly does it all fit into the big picture? Perhaps related to that, learn to take risk. Many breakthroughs stem from observations that didn’t at first make sense. However, the ability to recognize when to pursue and when to drop something is key. You also need to learn how to communicate effectively. The work can be terrific, but if it isn’t presented well, the impact is likely to be lost. A common mistake is to go into so much detail that it blurs the main message. Keep it simple. Typically, less is more. Perhaps try to see how good speakers structure their presentations or writers their papers. Finally, you need management skills, something we don’t train for. More and more institutions have mentorships for junior faculty. If yours doesn’t, try to arrange one. There will be lots of situations for which your PhD and postdoc did not fully prepare you.
What are your experiences organizing the CSHL plant course?
I love it! A lot goes into organizing this course, but every minute is worth it. The students taking the course are enthusiastic and eager to be there, and each year there is true talent among the participants. The topics covered are also more diverse than what I routinely read or hear, and so I learn a lot. Still, it is the interactions with the students as well as co-organizers and instructors that I particularly enjoy. The course’s unique setting spurs many interesting discussions, and then there are the informal interactions. Through the late nights on the course lab balcony or at the bar, you get to know the students individually,and these interactions are really rewarding. If you get the opportunity to participate in the course, whether as a student or an instructor, I highly recommend it.
Share your experiences on being awarded the prestigious Alexander von Humboldt Professorship.
It is a tremendous honor. Six such professorships on average are awarded each year across all disciplines. There are few biologists among the recipients, and I was the first plant scientist to receive this award. It opens doors and provides real opportunities. In addition to the honor, the award comes with a substantial sum of money to establish a new research group in Germany. This allows me to pursue some challenging problems that are not easily approached through three-year renewable grant cycles. I was always interested in returning to Europe; the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship made that so much easier.
How was your transition from CSHL to Tübingen?
I received tremendous support from my family and my new colleagues at the University of Tubingen, which made the transition far easier than it could have been. Moving requires adjustment, but moving to a new country is extra challenging. Aside from the actual science, everything is organized differently in Germany compared with the United States. This has led to some funny anecdotes as well as the occasional frustration; stereotypes are based on some level of truth. Still, looking back on the past year or so, it has been an exciting and overall very positive change. There are still some challenges ahead of me, such as in teaching, but for now I am enjoying the new life.
Can you shed some light on similarities and differences in the way science is done in these two premier research institutes?
The two institutions show more differences than similarities. CSHL is unique. In the United States, there are few places that resemble it. In some way, the fact that Tubingen and CSHL are so different made the transition easier. I like both places and see pros and cons for each. I’ll mention one point that I value for each. At CSHL, I value the interdisciplinary interaction facilitated by its small size and access to the many meetings and courses. These have greatly influenced the research my group has done. At Tubingen, I very much appreciate that the constant worry about funding that affects most of the U.S. science community is barely noticeable. This changes the scientific atmosphere. I see a greater emphasis on basic research here, and a willingness to take on high-risk or long-term projects. Some pressure is good, but too much stifles creativity. Perhaps science here is still more about curiosity than fundability. Time will tell.
What scientific advances and discoveries do you think have impacted plant scientists most in recent years? How have these discoveries influenced your research directions?
Well, there are many, and probably the longer I think about this question, the more will come to mind. So let me name just three that relate directly to the work we do:
What are the key qualities you seek in a potential team member?
Number 1 is passion. It is really important that the candidate be excited about science and the research we do. I further look for intellect, someone who is logical and can arrive at testable hypotheses; technical skills, particularly the ability to learn or adopt new technologies; communication skills; independence; and team spirit.
What is your ideal relaxation after a busy day of work?
I am not a morning person and so tend to work late into the evening. After coming home, I don’t typically do too much—work on a sudoku, read a book, or watch some TV. However, I like to be active on the weekends, go into the city. This used to mean Manhattan, but now my husband and I often go to Amsterdam to see an exhibit, have dinner, or see family or friends. On other weekends we do the exact opposite and go out into nature. My husband lives in Switzerland, and we love to go hiking in the Alps.
SOURCE: Kumar, S. (2017). Luminaries: Marja Timmermans. ASPB News 44(1):11–13. Reprinted by permission from ASPB.