By Shi En Kim

Can a woman pursuing a career in physics ever lead a normal family life?

“No,” was the answer a young Kathryn Levin received from a female physicist mentor-figure. Suddenly, this high schooler with big dreams was brought down to Earth to face her unfortunate reality: sacrifice family to follow her passion for physics or dash her career calling to attain fulfillment at home. It was an impossible choice, so Levin chose the impossible. The smart, headstrong, and resourceful young scientist entered college and leapt towards a future that she would build—a future in defiance of the grim expectations for women in the physical sciences. She was going to have it all.
* * *
I make my way down to Professor Kathryn Levin’s office just as she is wrapping up a discussion with a graduate student on some of their latest research results. She spies me not long later and saunters over with the remnants of excitement on her face. Clearly, it was a fruitful dialogue with her mentee, and she loved every minute of it.

Professor Levin is an award-winning professor of physics at the University of Chicago. She and her research group model atomic superfluids—fluids with zero viscosity when cooled to near absolute zero temperature—and exotic superconductors, solids which can technically carry an electrical current indefinitely with no loss in energy. Her enthusiasm for physics remains robust, even though she has been a professor for over 30 years. Very few women dare venture into a field as esoteric as hers, let alone one with such meager female representation. Even Professor Levin recognizes this. She is one of only three female faculty members in the department’s research subfield of condensed matter physics.

Also, she is happily married with two children. From all appearances, she has reached the highest echelons of physics yet not compromised her dreams to have a cozy family of her own, defying the predictions that her physicist mentor-figure made all those years ago.

As Professor Levin regales her story to me, I am not sure which I find more astonishing: that her own physicist father discouraged her from following in his footsteps as she was growing up, or that she was still headstrong enough to pursue physics despite such overwhelming negative feedback. Nevertheless, she insists she succeeded because of the negative advice as they sharpened her drive. She graduated top of the College of Letters and Science at the University of California Berkeley, then went on to graduate school at the prestigious Harvard University. She humbly claims that her path of becoming a physics professor is one of serendipity. Her secret to success in academia? ‘By exceling in the moment,’ she declares. ‘Life is not plannable. I only really wanted to do well in research, I never had a step-by-step plan.’

As an engineering graduate student at the University of Chicago, I came to know Professor Levin from taking two of her physics classes. One of them was Advanced Condensed Matter Physics. Besides me, the professor was the only other female in the class. Since taking her class, I have exponentially come to admire female scientists—especially the physicists—who stick it out in academia. It takes courage and a mental fortitude to overcome the barriers for entry, to ignore the dearth of women and the blatant male majority, of whom a woman like me can easily slip into fears of being left behind.

But women are usually on par with their male peers, despite the more prevalent lack of confidence in women, Professor Levin points out. Gender has never been either a measure or a proxy for personal and professional success, even in physics. She is truly the embodiment of this philosophy. Her pet peeve is when women are judged at a different standard than men are when it comes to boosting female representation in science at all levels. According to her, women and men can and should compete on a level playing field.

Nevertheless, Professor Levin emphasizes that it is important to have a strong emotional support network to counter such fears of the contrary, especially in graduate school. Even higher up along the academic ladder, she feels that overall, there is a sense in the wider community of tenured female professors of being underappreciated and marginalized—which women, particularly senior women, have to overcome. She pays tribute to her friend the late Professor Debbie Jin from the University of Colorado, who was her own source of encouragement and strength.

Outside of the field of physics, Professor Levin enjoys playing the piano recreationally. She suspects that music and physics go hand-in-hand somehow, as if both interests involve the same part of the brain. Still, her greater love will always be physics. It is palpable in her approach to research, in the people she surrounds herself with (her husband and one of her children are, unsurprisingly, also physicists), and even how she interacts with her group. She is definitely more involved in her research group’s projects than most other researchers I have seen. Her group is free to pop into the office whenever they want; there was one member who dropped by during our interview. The whole process of research to her is an emotional roller coaster, but she wants to stay as an intimate participant of these ups and downs. Physics she regards with a treasure hunt mentality, in a way that she will never be tired or jaded. Even several decades after setting foot into academia, she still shows no signs of stopping—or slowing down either.

Towards the end of her interview, Professor Levin reminds me that she has to attend a farewell party of a group member and needs to leave soon. Before heading to the event, she enthusiastically hurries to her graduate student’s office for another brief discussion on her research. I watch in admiration as Levin responds to the beckoning of the treasure trove of physics, to ‘excel in the moment’ once again.

Somehow, I know that she would have made her high school physicist mentor-figure and her father proud.

By Suchitra Sankaranarayan

Corinna Raimondo, a senior compliance specialist for the Office for Research Integrity, Northwestern University, is passionate about doing science professionally. Corinna, who has a PhD in physical chemistry followed by 2 post docs at Northwestern University decided to follow her call and pursued a role helping research integrity in academia. She works tirelessly to ensure the research conducted at Northwestern has integrity

I met Corinna in the classroom where she was my instructor for a non-credit, mandatory course called Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Her passion and vocalism about the rectifying the wrong methods in science was loved by everyone in class. Corinna with her frank nature while teaching brings a certain level of “sass” into the classroom environment. My earliest interaction with Corinna was her saying, “I know it is a Friday evening and we have this class, but there will always be food.” keeping us upbeat.

Corinna hated not being able to fully understand the world around her. This motivated her to develop an active interest in science beginning with a bachelor’s and master’s degree in chemistry at the University of Genoa (Italy) followed by a PhD at the Institut de Science et d’Ingénierie Supramoléculaire of the University of Strasbourg (France). Her early research focused on the synthesis, characterization, and application in devices of light-sensitive nanomaterials. Determined to stay in academia and pursue professorship, she worked as a postdoctoral fellow in the chemical and chemical engineering departments at Northwestern University, studying the synthesis and application of nanomaterials in the most diversified fields, ranging from pure electrochemistry to cell biology. She did her second postdoctorate in the chemical engineering department at Northwestern University where her main focus was developing novel heterogeneous catalysts for epoxidations and carbonylations.

While working deeply in laboratory settings, Corinna began to see the imperfections in the system of academic research and sought a professional figure to help her do something about it. When she was writing her proposal for professorship; Corinna realized she had to make a change in the system. The turning point came when Corinna attended an RCR class and learned of Research Integrity Officers (RIOs). Her interest piqued, she decided to pursue it diligently by taking up teaching assistantships for such courses and spending nights studying relevant literature to assimilate as much as she could about the field of research integrity. She was awarded the Mirzayan Fellowship that enabled her to discover how federal agencies worked in implementing scientific integrity in academia and industry. While initially confusing, Corinna calls it an incredible experience that allowed her to meet wonderful people in the field she was interested in. Post the 12-week stint, Corinna was interviewing for jobs. “The fellowship allowed me to meet so many incredible people and finally to land the job of my dreams. I feel incredibly lucky.”, she says.

Today, as Corinna sits working in her office, she carries a number of responsibilities on her shoulders. She facilitates proceedings in cases of misconduct at Northwestern University. “As a compliance specialist, I do my best to make sure that the procedures in place are applied promptly. The research misconduct process is complicated and lengthy and needs professionals to make sure it is managed the best way possible, keeping confidentiality of the parties involved and assuring the integrity of the institution.”, she explains.

Having an extensive research background has helped Corinna perform her job to the best of her abilities. Her curiosity, eagerness to learn and having a “scientist eye” are attributable. As a person who is meticulous, realizing that perfection isn’t always easy to achieve was hard but her humility enabled her to understand and admit her mistakes serving an opportunity to grow and progress.

In addition to this, she is passionate about teaching RCR to students. She wishes to explain correct research conduct and dealing with ethical dilemmas to younger scientists and trainees, such as myself, giving students the kind of mentorship she yearned for during her research days. “I wish I had such class when I first started working in labs. If even only one person, thanks to the knowledge from the class, is helped to make a difficult decision and to act with integrity, then my job is done.”, says Corinna.
As a woman, Corinna feels women are sometimes perceived as “distractions to male colleagues”. She is optimistic that the gender balance in academia is improving and is a strong advocate for equal treatment of the genders. Supported by a beautiful family of a husband and two children, she loves spending any free time with them. She aspires to reach greater heights in her career and also make some time for theatrical acting, an old hobby.

Once a scientist and now a promoter of science, Corinna is happy that her hard work and sacrifices have worked out to bring her to the present high point in life. Taking an unconventional route after being in traditional academia has not been easy but her zeal kept her motivated. She says to those interested in following a similar career path, “Don’t choose it because you need a job, do it only if you feel passionate about it.”

By Ankeeta Shah

Anindita (Oni) Basu, Assistant Scientist at Argonne National Laboratory and Assistant Professor of Genetic Medicine at the University of Chicago, is far from what the average person pictures when imagining a scientist. This is because our perception of what a scientist should look like has been shaped by gender biases that are entrenched in popular culture and the media. Nevertheless, Oni and her female colleagues are gradually changing the status quo. They represent the diverse array of scientists who are building an equitable and fruitful environment for the next generation.

Oni is the type of scientist young research trainees should aspire to become because she is invested in diversifying science in terms of who can get involved and what skills and experiences they can bring to the table.  Oni has “changed fields many times” but continues to “find ways to use old skills.” For example, with her extensive background in physics and genomics, she developed Drop-Seq, which is a technique that combines cutting-edge microfluidic droplet technology, massive molecular barcoding, and single-cell RNA-Seq, allowing her lab to categorize cell types in complex tissues.

Instrumental mentors from the beginning.

Oni moved from Kolkata to the United States for her undergraduate education at the University of Arkansas. Initially, she decided that she wanted to study computer engineering because it was the early 2000s and everyone she knew was doing computer engineering, especially her Indian peers. While she liked computer engineering, it was not something that really captured her imagination.

Eventually, Oni did find her true calling. During her second year of college, she was encouraged by the chair of the physics department to pursue physics because she seemed excited about it. Ultimately, she went on to conduct undergraduate research in physics and was certain that she was going to be in physics for the rest of her life. Oni gives credit to her instrumental mentors for their investment in her interests, claiming that “I am only here because of all the mentors I have had throughout my career.” 

Find the right people, and fruitful science will follow.

Enamored by physics, Oni went on to pursue a Ph.D. in Soft Matter Physics at the University of Pennsylvania. During her postdoctoral fellowship at the Broad Institute, she was intrigued by microfluidic devices and wanted to study complex fluids. However, early on, she unintentionally dived into genomics.

Her PI at the time outlined a collaborative project in genomics that he suggested she consider participating in. Oni recalls, “It was not so much the project that I liked, but the people.” She described how the biologists she had spoken with and ultimately worked with had broken down the problem into “simple words that a physicist could understand.” She appreciates that the effort was truly collaborative — everyone brought their own skillsets, repurposing them for the task at hand. Now, genomics is the “gift that keeps on giving.”

Since Oni arrived at the University of Chicago in 2016, her interdisciplinary work has attracted a wide variety of individuals to her lab, all from different fields — genetics, chemistry, immunology, engineering, and biophysics. She appreciates her students, describing them as genuine, creative, and inquisitive. “It takes not only what their background is,” she remarks, “but also their interest going forward that makes them fit for a project.”

Forward-thinking science.

“Growing up in India, or even in undergrad, we never thought about these things,” Oni says when describing the systemic bias against women in science. “Suddenly, you see this, and you ask, where did that all come from? Was it always here? Was I just not paying attention?” She notes that “it gets harder as you go higher up.” Oni observed this in subtle ways — she was the only girl in her physics group. And she also saw it in more dramatic ways — she was appalled hearing the stories of women her age “shrink and cower,” when dealing with some conservative hiring committees in academia.

There is no defined solution to gender inequality in science, according to Oni, but “talking about it, being aware, and making other people aware definitely does help.” Oni devotes a lot her time to outreach efforts aimed at getting girls interested in science. For example, she is involved in the Science Careers in Search for Women in which she speaks with students, which she describes as “bright and precocious kids,” about her scientific career. She notes that over the years of mentoring high school and college girls she has seen that “a lot of women are losing interest in science in high school. In middle school, science is cool for everyone. Suddenly, there is a divide.” Therefore, in terms of outreach, she believes that high school-aged girls definitely need more attention.

“The women that came before us in science did a lot of work to get where they were and to allow us to get to where we are,” Oni says, “and we shouldn’t take that for granted.” By consciously going in for more managerial or committee duties and leadership positions, women can continue to have a say. Oni believes that “what the women before us have done that is important, and we cannot say that things are getting better now and sit back. It is not just that we will not progress, but we might regress.”

By Claire Stevenson

A great role model

When Kari Barlan came to The University of Chicago for her post-doctoral work, three things jumped out: she was enthusiastic, had a great sense of humor, and a powerful drive for discovery. She had a post-it on her desk that said “discovery demands risk” and she meant it. She started by taking on a project and techniques that were completely new to the lab. But she wasn’t just a wide-eyed risk taker, she had impressive organizational skills and professionalism that helped ensure her success. All this combined to make her a great researcher and role model for trainees in the lab.

Before coming to The University of Chicago, Kari was no stranger to the Chicago scientific community. After her undergraduate degree at Oberlin College, Kari came to Northwestern University as a technician in Sarah Rice’s lab. She continued there for her doctorate work in Vladimir Gelfand’s lab before joining Sally Horne-Badovinac’s lab at The University of Chicago.

Moving beyond academia

After publishing her post-doctoral work in an exciting paper that advanced the field of collective cell migration, Kari was deciding on her next career move.  Although she started preparing for the academic job market, Kari wasn’t totally sold on academia. She said that she often felt like, “I was alone on my own island,” working on something that few others cared about, and wondered if this was the best way for her to have an impact on the world.

During this time, her work was attracting attention, both in her field and more broadly. Her publication had piqued the interest of the show Tell Me Something I Don’t Know, hosted by Stephen Dubner, best known for the book Freakonomics. This show brings in researchers to share interesting findings with the audience. Kari’s research focused on collective cell migration, which is essential for many processes including embryonic development, wound healing and cancer metastasis. She was interested in what enables collectively migrating cells to coordinate their movement. Her work elucidated a new paradigm for signaling between migrating cells and received much praise in the field.  However, after a few calls with the producer, the show decided her work wasn’t interesting to them. It was discouraging to hear that an audience of people yearning for groundbreaking discoveries wouldn’t find her work meaningful, but this harsh realization came at an opportune time. It reinforced her feeling that she wanted a career where she felt like she could have a larger impact, and she realized that she didn’t want to be alone on her academic island anymore.  She emphasized that she’s not denigrating academic science, but says, I was, “struggling to find my place in the larger world.”

This realization lead Kari to her current position as Senior Scientist in Functional Genomics at Abbvie, a pharmaceutical company in the northern suburbs of Chicago. She is part of a team that develops new CRISPR-based technologies that can be used to identify and develop potential drug targets. She is motivated by the potential that her platform has to help other biologists make discoveries. Every researcher wants to know the mechanism behind their disease of interest, and she feels that if she can develop a platform to help them gain that understanding, it has the potential to have a broad impact. When comparing her current position to academia she says, “in industry I can work with a lot of people and make a lot of progress quickly toward a tangible goal, even if it doesn’t result in a specific drug, you are able to move things along at a good pace with tangible results.”

Being a woman in science

Reflecting on how men and women are treated in the workplace, Kari has noticed some obvious gender differences over the years. One in particular is the different assumptions made about male versus female colleagues, not about one’s scientific ability, but about their interests. For example, she doesn’t get included in the same number of internal meetings as her male colleagues. And if someone wants an answer, she is not necessarily the first person they come to, even if she is qualified to answer and is working on something closely related. To combat this, she finds herself, “constantly trying to advocate, to ask to go to those meetings, or to set them up,” if a team is being formed she’ll stick up for herself to be included on it, she believes it is important to not get passed by. This is part of what makes Kari a great role model for all young scientists and professionals. Sticking up for oneself is not easy, and seeing someone have the guts to do it is inspiring.

Advice for your next career move

Kari has one big piece of advice for young scientists:  Thinking ‘I’m only a fly geneticist’, or ‘only a developmental biologist’, is very limiting. As scientists, “we develop skills that we don’t take credit for,” but which are highly valuable in any workplace, such as “self-motivation, organization, planning, leadership.” A lot of what we do is, “translatable into lots of different jobs, not just academics, you’re more than just a PhD… the key is knowing how to sell your skill set and spin what you’re able to do.” In terms of helping trainees decide on their next step, she said that you never know what’s going to happen, but any path you take will help you develop new ways of thinking and learning, all of which have fundamental value.

By Pallavi Sirjoosingh

Dr. Rebecca (Becky) Toroney took to biochemistry during her undergraduate years at Franklin & Marshall College. While working under Prof. Ryan Mehl, she helped develop a novel method to increase protein stability using UV cross-linking by incorporation of photoreactive unnatural amino acids. Following undergraduate studies, she decided to pursue a Ph.D. in chemistry. In addition to her interest in all things scientific, Becky was encouraged to pursue graduate studies by a mentor at home. Her sister, Rachel, who at that time was attending graduate school at Johns Hopkins University, gave Becky the behind-the-scenes on what “graduate school entails”. The state-of-the-art research facilities were great but it was talking to her eventual thesis advisor and mentor, Phil Bevilacqua, that convinced Becky to join Penn State, “He was enthusiastic about his research, and encouraged me to work with him over the summer before I joined graduate school”. Even though her summer research project was focused on studying pKa shifting using NMR, Becky decided she wanted to be closer to molecular biology, and her thesis work was focused on the different structural features of RNAs responsible for regulating protein kinase PKR.

It was in Phil’s lab that I met Becky. Her persistent attention to detail, a quality that also makes her a great scientist, was evident in her meticulous lab notebooks, well-organized lab bench, and a desk that would be the envy of Martha Stewart. One of my earliest memories of Becky is asking her for a plasmid, and watching her retrieve a 10X10 excel spreadsheet map of her sample box to pinpoint the exact location of the tube – I still aspire to this level of organization. In graduate school, I watched and learned from Becky mentor a fellow graduate student, and benefitted greatly from her advice during group meetings and random lunchroom conversations.

After finishing graduate school Becky decided to continue academic research. While attending the ASBMB conference in California, Becky saw a talk by Prof. John Staley at the University of Chicago. Becky wanted to pursue her postdoctoral research on a topic different from her graduate research work, and “splicing was an interesting and established field, and John’s research was unique from Phil’s”. After speaking with Prof. Staley, Becky realized that the research project may entail more genetics but it helped that Prof. Staley “was trained as a chemist”, and that she would still have a “foot planted in chemistry”.

During her tenure at the Staley lab, Becky earned the prestigious NIH Ruth L. Kirschtein NRSA Postdoctoral fellowship, and a postdoctoral research grant by the Chicago Biomedical Consortium, for her research on the U6 snRNA’s role in the spliceosome disassembly. Early on in her scientific career, Becky had watched her graduate school mentor tackle the pressure of obtaining scientific funding. She decided that the responsibility of having “multiple people’s careers and livelihoods depend upon my ability to obtain tricky research funding” was a source of stress that she wanted to avoid in her professional career. Following the completion of her postdoctoral research work, Becky decided to join Abbott Molecular as a Senior Scientist taking on a completely new challenge.

Early on at Abbott, Becky became part of the research team involved in validating a real-time qPCR based assay that helps detect specific mutations in the IDH2 gene in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The diagnostic assay is a companion to the drug Idhifa (enasidenib, Celgene) that is used for the treatment of adult patients that have relapsed or refractory AML, and both the drug and the assay received FDA-approval recently. Even though she thoroughly enjoyed the intellectual vigor of her academic research work, being a part of the developmental team for this diagnostic assay with direct consequence to the lives of patients, was an extremely gratifying experience for Becky.

When not in the lab, you can find Becky running along the lakefront path on warmer days (she recently completed a half marathon), watching opera at the Lyric, playing the Game of Thrones theme-song on her cello, listening to live music at the Millennium Park, or surprising an unaware friend by her in-depth knowledge of Star Trek.

Fortunately, Becky says, she has not suffered from any obstacles in her research career because of her gender, but she has observed female scientists struggle trying to “maintain a work-life balance” more so than their male counterparts. Her advice to graduate students – “don’t get pushed into working on a project you’re not that interested in- it might make for some uncomfortable conversations with your PI but it’s worth taking ownership over your work”, and “select an advisor who is interested in helping you become the best scientist you can be, not just one who churns out a lot of great papers but only thinks of the people in his/her lab as data collectors.” Becky’s love for science has guided her to different research areas and settings, and she says that loving science doesn’t mean “you have to pursue a traditional academic career path”. She says a large number of trained scientists follow a “non-traditional” path. Becky is not just a scientist but a proponent of science too, and believes that “we need more scientists who want to interact with the public and, especially policymakers, or who want to craft that policy themselves.”

By Aurelie Desgardin

There are good scientific mentors. There are good professional life mentors. But good scientific mentors are not necessarily good career mentors. Those who are great at both deserve recognition. Dr. Erin Adams is quite the perfect example of someone who can offer great scientific advice and personal guidance. She is definitely someone I wish I had met earlier in my career. Dr. Adams is a fantastic mentor beyond the bench, the Joseph Regenstein Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, serves on the Committees on Immunology and, Cancer Biology at the University of Chicago. She is also a Principal Investigator of the myCHOICE program.

Mentoring at its BEST.

Remembering her own journey, Dr. Adams recalls moments of frustration and introspection: “What to do next?” It’s a question that is in anyone’s mind in moments of transition. A Northern California native, she went on to discover the culture of research as a lab technician after getting her undergraduate degree at UCSD. She received her Ph.D. in population genetics and molecular biology from the University of California, Berkeley. As a postdoc at Stanford, she thought long and hard about what she likes to do and decided to stay in academia because “I enjoy asking questions”. She adds that: “It’s not easy to make decisions that will determine your future and scientists receive no training in the matter”.

It is specifically because Erin Adams knows this that she is so successful as a BEST (Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training) principal investigator. The NIH BEST award funds the myCHOICE initiative which has been a massive success ever since its launch, attracting trainees from outside institutions and new graduate students to the University. myCHOICE exposes graduate students and postdocs from STEM fields to various career paths, in addition to academic research. myCHOICE seminars and skills-focused workshops are eye-opening. From policy to science communication, from technology transfer to clinical research, SCIENCE in truth, is everywhere! It’s in every aspect of our communities and our culture.

The grateful mentor.

Gratitude is always at the forefront of Dr. Erin Adams’ mind. It is what keeps her going strong despite life’s many challenges. When asked about how she manages the many hats that she wears so well, Erin does not hesitate to share that passion is a driver: “Passion for the future of my people, passion for science, passion for time”. She admits that on hard days “it’s the small things that keep the wheel turning and you need a good night sleep”.

As a single mother of a toddler and a few four-legged family members, mentor of many on top of her involvement in commendable initiatives, Erin confesses that willful gratitude is what keeps her going. She goes on to explain that pre-tenure, she had a tough time. The uncertainty and lack of control over her own trajectory made her life uneasy. Erin explains that everything changed when she adopted Xena, then an 8 weeks old puppy. She has been extremely grateful for Xena. Somehow, being grateful triggered a chain reaction of events and everything fell into place, including the tenure. She admits “I am very lucky! I am grateful for my son, my position, the numerous opportunities to make important contributions to how the world moves forward.” She believes that gratitude is what keeps life flowing the right way, keeps one open to opportunities and, keeps one finding one’s happy place.

When it comes to the day to day of research, Dr. Adams does not believe in micro-managerial approaches to mentorship. She believes that letting her mentees be independent helps them develop critical troubleshooting and social skills. After all, one needs “to know how to ask for help and interact with others” to bloom. She also remembers the days when science not going well meant that nothing was good. Recognizing this unhealthy mindset, she encourages work/life balance and leads by example.

Dr. Adams personifies hard work and dedication mixed in with calm and devotion. One step in her office and you are transported into her world. There is color, texture, intimate furniture that create a very warm and lively yet uncluttered workspace. It feels like home! Xena most certainly helps with that. Erin is bringing her in everyday It’s like having therapy at work for Erin and her lab members and the rest of the department.

Mentoring laterally!

Bringing awareness to male colleagues about the under-representation of women in higher positions within STEM fields is something that Dr. Adams has no problem voicing up. Dr. Adams is not going to simply let male counterparts repeat her statements and get the credit she is due. She speaks out about implicit bias, the lack of diversity in applicant pools and gets men to start thinking differently. Her take on the issue if that “we need to speak more about the issue, we need to advocate, be supportive and mentor the women who are already in STEM fields”.

I believe that Dr. Erin Adams’ capacity to make anyone feel comfortable enough to be genuine is her greatest gift. It allows for those important conversations to take place and be constructive. It allows for growth and impact. Dr. Erin Adams certainly had an impact at the University of Chicago and we look forward to more!

by Huan Xu

The first time I met Yulia was in 2015 when I visited Dr. Brian Popko’s laboratory to finalize my rotation. She smiled at me and said: “Whenever you have a question, you can come to me.” I thought her words were probably just a hint of her being a nice and polite senior postdoc in Dr. Popko’s laboratory. However, it turned out she really meant it. Since 2015, Yulia has become my role model, my best lab mate, and best friend. She is one of the few people I met who refresh my mind to look and experience the world differently.

A doctor found her real passion.

I was surprised to learn that Yulia had a rather unconventional career path. She completed her Ph.D. training at New York University School of Medicine, in the laboratory of Dr. James Salzer, where she studied mechanisms of node of Ranvier formation. Throughout her academic training, she has maintained a broad interest in the medical sciences, fascinated by cellular and molecular processes underlying various pathologies. In pursuit of clinical science knowledge, after receiving her Ph.D. in Neuroscience and Physiology, she obtained an M.D. from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and completed a year of internship training. It was at this point that she decided to exit medicine and focus on a research career. When I asked Yulia what inspired her to change her career path from a medical doctor to a scientist, she said: “Being a doctor was a wonderful opportunity to learn about various disease processes and to use this knowledge in a clinical setting. However, I missed working in a research laboratory and the creative process of scientific discovery. Although I embarked on this journey thinking of a career that combines clinical practice and research, over the years of medical training my interests evolved to focus on investigating biological questions that have clinical relevance.”

A scientist wants to understand neurodegenerative diseases.

Following her passion, Yulia started her postdoctoral fellowship training in Dr. Brian Popko’s laboratory at the University of Chicago, where she received NIH NINDS F32 postdoctoral fellowship. Yulia’s postdoctoral research is focused on investigating the roles of an innate protective mechanism, called the integrated stress response, in mouse models of multiple sclerosis (MS) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

I asked Yulia about some of the new trends happening in her research areas of interest. She said: “Identification of novel therapies to protect oligodendrocytes against the inflammatory CNS environment will be a significant accomplishment for alleviating MS. To this end, our research group (led by Dr. Brian Popko) has demonstrated that pharmaceutical enhancement of the integrated stress response alleviates clinical symptoms and increases oligodendrocyte survival in mouse models of MS, thus providing support for exploring this pathway as a novel treatment strategy.” While there are many new research avenues to facilitate ALS drug development, she is especially excited about ‘designer DNA drug’ therapy (antisense oligonucleotides) developed by Dr. Don Cleveland’s team at the University of San Diego. This therapy involves the infusion of antisense DNA oligonucleotides for targeted gene silencing in the nervous system. The initial clinical trial in ALS demonstrated the safety of this therapeutic approach, and follow-up trials are underway.

A mentor passes her experience to young students.

As an MD/Ph.D., Yulia has a broad knowledge base in medicine and sciences, and she is very generous to share her experience and advice with people around her. She suggests students identify a mentor (or mentors) early in their career. “Both science and medicine are very much hands-on specialties, and nuances of either profession cannot be learned from books alone. Thus, good mentorship cannot be underestimated,” Yulia said. She fondly recalls her own postdoc mentors at New York University School of Medicine (where she was a graduate student), as they taught her everything she needed to know about molecular neurobiology. Now having completed her own training, she strives to follow in the footsteps of her mentors. “I enjoy mentoring undergraduate students in our laboratory. I teach my students both the technical aspects of research, such as how to run immunohistochemistry or quantitative PCR experiments, as well as experimental design and critical data analysis. This experience has been very rewarding.”

Reflecting on her journey in medicine and biological sciences, Yulia said: “I really enjoy what I am doing and I would choose the same path if I were given another chance.” Seeking and courageously following her professional interests, Yulia is on her way to achieving her long-term career goal as a principal investigator to advance the understanding of neurodegenerative diseases. Having seen Yulia’s passion for science, and how she passes her knowledge and hands-on experience to her students, I genuinely feel it’s such a blessing for the people around her to work with her, learn from her, and be inspired by her.

by Shi En Kim

I confess that writing about Melody Swartz is a somewhat intimidating task. The world sees her as an Arnold and Mabel Beckman Young Investigator Award recipient, a winner of the National Science Foundation Early Career Award, and one of the Brilliant 10 named by Popular Science in 2006. There have already been numerous articles written about her; I was concerned that I would be rehashing another one of these articles that herald her many accomplishments. Nevertheless, I have the desire to do her achievements and even more so, the personal side of her story justice.

If you are a student in immunology or cancer biology, then you may have already heard of Melody Swartz. She is a chaired Professor of Molecular Engineering at the University of Chicago, a distinguished bioengineering scientist who has authored over 130 publications to date. Her work on the lymphatic system in cancer immunotherapy is legendary; the MacArthur Fellowship which she garnered in 2012 is a direct testament to her creativity. Yet, many would be as surprised as I was at learning this snippet of Melody’s background: she confessed that once upon a time not too long ago, she actually almost detested biology.

‘I was once a pre-med student at John Hopkins University, but I changed my mind halfway,’ Melody explains. During her undergraduate studies, she found the cutthroat environment of the pre-med track to be a poor fit to her interests. Biology, in particular, required a reductionist way of thinking that her mind rebelled against. She switched to chemical engineering, where she reveled in the problem-solving nature that has ultimately become the bedrock of her research interests later on.

After college, she was awarded the prestigious Watson Fellowship to study the crossroads of engineering and social development in Micronesia. Driven by the desire to improve the standards of living in undeveloped communities, she thus embarked on a mission to improve the water resource systems in the local communities. Melody playfully slips that back then the technological disparity compared to back home was enormous: she may have been living in conditions equivalent to ‘having rudimentary toilets consisting of mere holes in the ground’ and ‘wearing clothes made from leaves’ à la Robinson Crusoe. Amidst all the adventure, she was frustrated with the cultural barriers that often hindered her efforts to improve lives, and although her cause did not waver, she realized that the challenge she craved was more of an intellectual rather than a social one.

On her journey of self-exploration, she recognized that what she truly enjoyed the most was research. Her appreciation for science simply for what it is is palpable, but she prefers the broader scope of applying scientific principles to real-world applications. In the implementation of engineering solutions to solve various global problems, she prefers to be at the helm in making the groundbreaking discoveries that revolutionize technology and the way we think. Naturally, research was a fitting choice for a career path. After working as a research technician for a year at Northwestern University, she was accepted into MIT as a PhD student to pursue research that applied chemical engineering principles to—ironically—biology. Back in the 1980s, Melody clarifies, bioengineering was still nascent, straddling biology and traditional chemical engineering but not a separate field in its own right. Furthermore, fluid mechanics, which is so integral to chemical engineering, had hardly been used to investigate solute and fluid transport through tissues and in lymphatics. But the human body is largely made of water, so—in her words— ‘tissue fluid mechanics is essentially the same as solute transport for waste [water] management,’ as any chemical engineer is familiar with. A full circle had been drawn back to her undergraduate years. She, in fact, had never truly resented biology, on the contrary, she found that problems in biology were (and are even till this day) largely unexplored and thus a gold mine waiting to be unearthed using the tools of her trade: fluid mechanics and transport modeling. That the world needed more solutions to solve various issues in health also appealed to her inner engineer to seek to improve lives.

Since graduate school, Melody’s research migrated from studying biomechanics in the lung and lymphatic system to the integrative biology of the lymphatic system she is now most well-known for. In particular, she focuses on the role of lymphatics in immune regulation, especially for cancer detection and elimination. I am drawn into her infectious enthusiasm as she elucidates what intrigued her to the field in the first place. She believes that not only the molecules carried by the lymphatic fluid but also how the lymphatic fluid flows have a profound effect on the body’s immune response. When one truly delves into how the immune system works, one cannot help but marvel at the complexities it has to deal with in sensing foreign antigens and self-produced harmful agents as it proceeds to eradicate them without killing the human host in the process. What is the line between this self-non-self distinction, and how does the immune system decide what to eliminate? The ‘self’—cancerous cells, for instance—is not always as innocuous as we would normally expect, whereas ‘non-self’ interlopers such as gut bacteria play a vital role in supporting various bodily functions. Melody’s goal is to explore this selectivity of the immune system from the perspective of lymphatics. What makes her research stand out is her willingness to be unconventional. I am especially in awe of how she is drawn to open questions in biology but is also willing to take the extra step of expanding her toolset to include computer modeling as needed. Her integrative, problem-solving approach makes her a tour-de-force in the fields of physiology and immunology.

Besides her tenacity in her research as well as her adventurous spirit that has charted her self-exploration and taken her all around the world in to establish new collaborations, I admire her the most for her honesty. She admits that being a woman in science has not always been easy as her male colleagues have it. Occasional off-the-hand remarks from students and the subtle undermining of her authority by members of the scientific community from time to time are experiences that many female science students like me can relate to. Nonetheless, Melody’s research has always been accompanied by her mentorship to rebalance gender roles and nurture the next generation of scientists. In joining UChicago’s first ever engineering program at the Institute of Molecular Engineering (IME), she has been and remains an active participant in faculty recruitment to develop the bioengineering branch and in shaping the curriculum to cultivate a new generation of molecular engineers. The advent of the molecular engineering program also gave rise to engineering student societies such as the Society of Women Engineers (SWE), to which Melody acts as an advisor. Additionally, her very own group members adore her, describing her as personable, humble, and genuinely excitable when it comes to research. Interviewing her, I can see that her formula to her success is apparent: be adaptable and not forget one’s roots. Her diverse background, from her pre-med years to her immersion in sociology and finally to hard core research, along with the willingness to experiment has brought her to where she is today. She has remained true to herself to reject the inherent inefficiencies in regarding traditional disciplines, thereby reinventing the way the scientific community considers engineering and biology, and perhaps, herself along with it.

by Aurelie Desgardin

Dr. Nancy Schwartz often sits quietly, listening to scientists of all levels as though she is no different from the others in the room. Humility, a characteristic often attributed to womanhood, is partially why she is so successful. She listens, processes information, thinks about what to say so no word is left unweighted. She does not need to command respect with a loud voice and broad shoulders, she does it naturally and with a dash of class.

Growing up 70 miles from Pittsburgh Pennsylvania in a household that valued education, Nancy has always been attracted to science but did not wish to follow in the footsteps of her older sister and go to medical school. Nancy had a thing for Mathematics. She loved it and was great at it. Wanting more than high school math, she sought out college summer classes which led to a full scholarship, an early college graduation, and a great yet undetermined future.

Nancy did not waste time pursuing Math after graduation. She was told bluntly that pursuing graduate studies in Mathematics as a woman was pointless – there would be few job prospects. So, she turned towards chemistry, also not a very popular subject of study among women at the time and then, biochemistry. As she puts it lightly “it has chemistry in the name, it must be interesting”.

A lot has changed since the days Dr. Schwartz joined academia. However, some things have not changed much. At the time, moving up the ranks was considered the default pathway. While this model is still vibrant in the minds of new graduate students and young postdocs, it no longer holds true. Women are still not drawn to chemistry and other STEM fields; and, while women are no longer a minority in biological sciences they are underrepresented in leadership positions. Somehow Dr. Schwartz found her place. She came with her husband to Chicago and joined the University of Chicago as a postdoctoral fellow because she thought this was the best place for her to be. Her choice was undeniably the right one. She has climbed the ladder to become the professor of Pediatrics and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in addition to being the director of the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center. With each new position, she took on more responsibilities, applying her efforts to bridging the gap of inequalities.

A Lifetime of Achievements

Dr. Schwartz’ accomplishments as a scientist and a mentor would make quite a list. She is a successful investigator with a lengthy track record of mentoring and efforts towards the development and support of scientists as well as diversity within the sciences.

Looking at Dr. Schwartz today, one would not picture an activist beneath the veneer of a poised professor. Dr. Schwartz says “growing up in the late 60s and 70s, in a time of change, was exciting”. She marched for equal rights, for women, voting rights, and against the war in Vietnam. She developed a taste for large group efforts with a purpose for progress. Could it be because there is chemistry in group chemistry?

In regards to building her career, she confesses that it was about “putting together areas that I like to do. I have interests in big group efforts and training”. This led to her development of multiple projects such as a PostBac and Initiative for Maximizing Student Development programs (IMSD), in the National Research Mentoring Network Committee on Institutional Cooperation Academic Network and much more. Some of her more impressive endeavors include directing for 35 years a multi-investigator, P01 Program Project and a P30 center grant for the Developmental Disabilities Research Center at UChicago. Dr. Schwartz is the director of this center and her lab researches skeletal and brain development. She also has directed a T32 MD/Ph.D. training development program that has been continually funded for 35 years.

Dr. Schwartz stands for all scientists. She joined the GRE board where she advocated for the GRE to be more appropriate for scientists. She emphasizes the importance of outreach efforts and helped to start and chaired a Graduate Deans group and Postdoc Leaders group through the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Dr. Schwartz feels strongly about diversity in the Sciences. She recognizes that private institutions are not compelled to participate in such efforts but that demonstrating efforts and affecting cultural change is beneficial to the University. While Dean of the Biological Sciences Division Graduate School, Dr. Schwartz established the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs where she serves as Dean and Director.

In 2016, Dr. Schwartz received one of her most moving recognitions, the NPA Distinguished Service Award. The National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) was created by a group of 7 postdoctoral scholars who, with the support of an advisory board including Dr. Schwartz, succeeded in establishing what is today an invaluable resource for postdoctoral trainees across the nation. She is proud that this nascent project grew to be sustainable despite the transient nature of the postdoc population. Dr. Schwartz is a proponent of institutional involvement and shares that “Universities do not take responsibility for their postdocs in the same way they do with their graduate students because they want to see them walk away with a degree.”

Dr. Nancy Schwartz is a role model and mentor to many women in science – to follow what naturally feels right to oneself, unapologetically embrace femininity and succeed by combining things one cares about with the things one loves to do that benefits many. She admits that her humble perspective may be a characteristic classically associated with women but nevertheless “I don’t portray myself as a leader but I like to think that I enhance”. I happen to think that maybe her training as a chemist organically transformed Dr. Nancy Schwartz into the catalyst of the many groups and the range of successes she has achieved.