The CU Anschutz Student & Postdoc Newsletter

A P R I L 2 0 1 9 | I S S U E N O . 8

By Jennifer L. Major

C a m p u s E v e n t s - 4 - 5C a n n a b i s R e s e a r c h - 6E t h i c s o f G e n e E d i t i n g - 7S c i e n c e & M o t h e r h o o d - 8

R e s e a r c h T i p s - 1 0

F o o t s t e p s S e r i e s - 1 2 - 1 4

S c i e n c e W r i t i n g C a r e e r - 1 5

“Academia is an easy place to work”- said no one ever. In academia, funding is onlyguaranteed for a few years at a time, deadlines are never-ending, and our tagline is“publish or perish.” We constantly have to prove why what we do is  fundable, and are told we need to grow a thick skin to deal with rejection. Thus, it’s notsurprising that trainees suffer from burn-out, imposter syndrome, and havehigher incidences of mental health issues such as anxiety and depressioncompared to the general public. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, PhDstudents and postdocs work long hours, weekends, and seldom use all of theirvacation time.   

 During my PhD, I always felt an immense guilt before asking for a vacation. I was always waiting for some “good data”to reduce the trauma of my not being in the lab for a few days, as if I needed to constantly earn my university-mandated vacation time. When I did take a long weekend I would feel the need to explain to my colleagues why I wastaking one. It seems that in any academic laboratory there is an on-going competition of who stayed the latest, whoworked the weekend, and who always comes into work even when they are sick.  We have developed a toxic culturewhere we fear that we will be judged as not being committed to research if we take any time for ourselves, and it ishurting our health.  In the world outside of academia, research shows that employees are more productive when they work shorter hoursand work weeks. There are even unheard-of policies where employees are not expected to answer work related emailswhile on vacation! While working four days/week may not be a realistic goal for many of us, perhaps we can learn a bitfrom the “real-world.” We shouldn’t judge ourselves based on how many hours we stay glued to the bench, but insteadon the quality of our work and how well we collaborate with others. We can still love research and be productivescientists if we don’t work 50+ hours a week and take vacations.  This attitude won’t change overnight but we can startthe shift by encouraging each other to take a vacation, doing more things outside of the lab, and generally realizing thatwe are more than slaves to the bench. After all, if we don’t support each other, who will?

Exercise is good for you. This is not groundbreaking or new information. Ask any person, independent of their career, socialor economic class, and I guarantee they acknowledge that exercise is beneficial. Despite this, over 80% of people in the US arecompletely sedentary – no exercise whatsoever. This is not due to lack of knowledge or proper education, but lack of propermotivation, discipline, and decision-making. The most common excuse for not exercising is “I do not have time” – trust me, asa PhD student, this often seems like a valid excuse. However, a simple change in decision-making can help keep your mental and physical health a priority. Next time you usethe excuse “I do not have time,” I challenge you to change your wording  to “It is not a priority.” Discipline will be the maindriver for your accomplishments. You will not feel motivated every day. You will practice discipline to continually triumphover the voice in your head. The era of “no pain, no gain” is over. Current physical activity guidelines by multiple organizations now recommendaccumulating at least 30 minutes a day of moderate-intensity physical activity such as brisk walking. The emphasis is onfrequency of movement throughout your day, and simply moving your body! You do not need to go pump iron, take aZumba class, or hike a 14er (although these are great options), but you need to move your body. Now, telling PhD students that they need to block out 30 minutes a day for exercise can seem intimidating and may requirea shake-up in your current routine. However, I have an efficient, beneficial habit that will help you get 30 minutes ofexercise while aiding in proper digestion and mental health: take a scheduled ten-minute walk after every meal. Ten minute walks are simple and easy to comply with. So, PhD students, let’s do some simple math. 30 minutes a day. 210minutes a week. 840 minutes a month. 10,080 minutes a year. Voila! You just exercised 168 hours more than you did lastyear. I challenge you to head out for a walk after your next meal. Beat the voice in your head with positive priorities, findyour flow, and continue to challenge yourself, not only mentally, but physically. I assure you - your pipette and Netflix willstill be there when you get back to the lab or your home. Need ideas for campus walking routes or just need a campus walking buddy? Contact kendra.prutton@ucdenver.edu

Next time you use the

excuse 'I do not have time,'

I challenge you to change

your wording  to 'It is not a

priority.'

By Kendra Putton, BS, MPS

P A G E 2

By Bruce Mandt, PhD

P A G E 3

Are you getting at least 7 hours of sleep (per night, not per week...)? How are you dealing with your

stressors? Exercise much? Take breaks?

How’s your friend situation? Making new friends gets harder as we get older, and can be particularly

difficult in an isolating academic environment. Take advantage of student or postdoc organizations – they’re

an easy place to start.

Remember that imposter syndrome problem? Learning how to deal with it can go a long way to rebuilding

your self-esteem.

Do you want to become more creative? Increase your productivity? Feel more optimistic about your future? Excellent!

All that can be yours.

But, first, let me ask you this: how’s your balance? I don’t mean “stand on one leg” kind of balance. I mean your life

balance. Because my guess is that if you’re a graduate student or a postdoc, you probably hardly have a leg to stand on...

What do I mean? Well, in graduate and postdoctoral training, we’re told that in order to be successful, we should spend

every waking moment focused on our projects: read more articles, gather more data, submit that paper... wait, go back,

looks like reviewer 2 wants even more data, etc. One of the main problems with this approach is that we’re humans,

not machines, and humans have needs. Lots of needs.

In fact, there are many psychological theories about how important our needs are for our overall well-being. For

example, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs categorizes needs as either basic (e.g., food, security, belonging, esteem) or

higher order (e.g., creativity, realizing our full potential), and uses a pyramid to depict the hierarchy – the broad

foundation of the pyramid is our basic needs, whereas the very top is our higher order needs. A key takeaway from

Maslow’s theory is that we can’t get to the top of the pyramid unless we first ensure we’re meeting those basic needs.

Have you spotted the problem? Working longer hours or being laser-focused on our projects isn’t going to make us

more successful – in fact, it might actually make us less so. The answer to how to become more creative, productive, or

optimistic is not to put in more hours – it’s to shift the focus of the hours you put in onto what you really need. And you

need to regain some balance.

So, are you paying attention to ALL of your needs?

It’s about time you spend less time with your analytical balance and start spending more time being analytical about

your balance. I think you’ll find that if you can (re)establish some equilibrium, you’ll have renewed energy and

motivation to tackle the many demands of graduate and postdoctoral training, and be in a position where your true

abilities will be on full display.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

By The StressFest Committee

Over the week of April 29th-May 3rd, the Second Annual Stress Fest will provide students with an outlet to help reducestress and a time to rest during the end of semester blues. The Stress Fest is a week long event centered aroundwellness, mindfulness, and mental health. It aims to provide a central hub for students to easily access healthy ways toreduce stress and balance their body and mind. The Stress Fest also presents Wellness Wednesdays, which is a day to‘check in’ with the student body. The purpose of Wellness Wednesday is to provide an avenue for students to re-set andanalyze if they are truly present in their day to day endeavors. It is a time to connect with wellness resources oncampus that are available to all.  Last year, the Stress Fest was created by Oluwatosin Adebiyi, School of Medicine class of 2021, out of a need for stressreduction herself. “I think stress and burnout is everyone’s issue,” says Adebiyi. “Initially the target was for students.But I’m hoping the Stress Fest could be a staple event that Anschutz hosts. An event for everyone.” All Stress Fest events are all completely free, including yoga, meditations, an anti-stigma panel and more. And yes,there will also be free food.

P A G E 4

Campus Events

Are you a student group or mental health resource on campus interested in joining Wellness Wednesday? Please fill out a short format: https://goo.gl/forms/wDlfjOc6KJ5R31fu1. Interested in volunteering? Sign up at: https://goo.gl/forms/sb5164ZoeCJX7dnC3 https://goo.gl/forms/wDlfjOc6KJ5R31fu1  https://goo.gl/forms/sb5164ZoeCJX7dnC3

By Liz Terhune, MS

An underestimated skill among scientists is the ability to distill one’s researchinto a short, easily understood pitch for a broad audience. At 3 minute talk(3MT) competitions, these skills are being put on full display through acompetition for the best one-slide, 3-minute presentation. 3MTs were firstorganized at the University in Queensland in 2008, but have since beenadopted around the world. Since 2018, the Graduate Schools at CU Denver andAnschutz Medical Campus have hosted 3MT competitions for graduatestudents and postdocs.

P A G E 5

Campus Events

On January 25, 2019, the University of Colorado's First Annual Intercampus 3MT competition awarded CU Denver MSstudent Selina Vong with the first place award for her talk “Blindness-Preventing Contact Lenses.” Vong received a$1,000 prize, a trip to the 1 st annual Colorado Statewide 3MT championship and the regional competition at theWestern Association of Graduate Schools (WAGS) A smaller-scale, but equally exciting 3MT competition will be held on May 1 st at the Milestones of Success Celebrationat 2:30-4pm in Krugman Conference Hall at CU Anschutz. For more information on past and upcoming 3MT competitions, please visit: 

Can you remember when you fell in love with science?  Lucky for me, it was when I was a young girl and first steppedfoot in a chemistry lab with my mom, a non-traditional college student.  My privileged experience was quite unique,but what about children who aren’t so lucky? Young Hands in Science (YHS) brings science straight to the kids of Aurora and Denver.  Started by a group of postdocsin 2014, YHS is a campus-wide outreach organization focused on promoting STEM education and diversity right here inour local community.   On March 18th, Vaughn Elementary fifth-graders were immersed in all things ecology, including learning aboutspecies competition, predator-prey relationships, and mutualism by playing a game to collect enough M&M’s beforewinter.  Some students succeeded, some didn’t, but they all gained a deeper appreciation for science and got to meetreal-life scientists, us! As an added bonus, at the end of the day, each student created a terrarium in a mason jar whichthey took home with them.   In addition to lessons about ecology, kids can learn about the importance of DNA and forensics through a make-believe,but equally engaging, crime scene.  Or they can learn about homeostasis and how it relates to their health by learninghow to take their own vital signs. In past experiences, students have described their time with YHS as “so epic” and“mind-blowing.” If working directly with kids isn’t really your thing, but you’d still like to influence the next generation of scientists,YHS is always looking for behind the scenes volunteers to participate in curriculum development, volunteercoordination, and marketing. 

By Kate Siegrist, PhD

You can find more information at https://younghandsinscience.wixsite.com/home, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.https://younghandsinscience.wixsite.com/home

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/Graduate-School/Pages/three-minute-talks.aspx

P A G E 6

By Kate Siegrist, PhD

Cannabis use has been legal in the United States for the past 19 years, thanks to Colorado.  Since then, 10 states andWashington, D.C. have legalized cannabis for recreational and medicinal use, and an additional 23 states haveapproved it for medicinal use only.   So, Colorado is the epicenter of all things cannabis… unless you’re trying to research it. Researchers at CU Anschutz interested in cannabis research face many barriers due to federal prohibition and lawsregarding human subjects research.  These obstacles are put in place by the federal government, not CU Anschutz, toprotect faculty, staff, and students from sanctions. First, in order to administer any cannabis-derived compound inyour research (human, rodent, and even cellular), you’ll need to obtain a license from the Drug Enforcement Agency(DEA).  If you want to give these compounds to humans, you’ll need approval from the Federal Drug Administration(FDA) in addition to completing the routine Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval process. Lastly, you’ll need toacquire these compounds from either a pharmaceutical company (e.g. Epidiolex®, GW Pharmaceuticals, $1,235/100mL) or the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), the only federally-authorized producer of whole plant cannabis.   According to the 25th edition of NIDA’s Drug Supply Program Catalog, one can obtain whole plant cannabis withtetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the psychoactive cannabinoid) concentrations ranging from 1% to 10% in concert withcannabidiol (CBD, the non-psychoactive cannabinoid) ranging from 1% to 10%.  Although not advertised in this latestedition, it is well-known that a new 30:1 CBD:THC extract is now available. Because the latest catalog seems outdated,it’s best to contact NIDA directly, although some CU researchers who have inquired about these new products havenot received a response.   Regardless, as every Coloradan knows, these formulations do not reflect the situation here in Colorado.  If you’reinterested in researching the high-cannabinoid-concentration strains of cannabis ( 30% THC) that your fellowColoradans are consuming, that’s off-limits to any study design other than observational.  You cannot expose humans(or rodents or cells) to Coloradan cannabis, and you cannot tell your research subjects when and how much cannabis toconsume. However, hope is on the horizon with the new Farm Bill passed late last year legalizing hemp production in the UnitedStates.  Hemp is a species of cannabis plant containing less than 0.3% THC, but generally a high concentration of CBD.At this time, CBD is still a Schedule I drug (according to the DEA) and the FDA has yet to weigh in on this matter. Nevertheless, cannabis researchers are hopeful that this new legislation will open up opportunities to conduct soundscientific cannabis studies without as much red tape.

Colorado is the epicenterof all things cannabis…unless you’re trying to

research it.

By Breanna A. Symmes, PhD

Imagine yourself as the parent of a child diagnosed with Tay-Sachs—a disease that destroys nerve cells, causingseizures, pain, blindness, deafness, paralysis and death by the age of 4 years.  Now imagine that you can fix the singledefective gene in that child, and then s/he will have the same chance as any other child to live a perfectly normal,happy, healthy life. Since the discovery of genetic diseases, that has been the ultimate goal of gene modification inmedicine. Previously featured only in fictional television, films, and hopeful documentaries, gene editing in human beingsrecently transitioned from science fiction to imminent reality with the advent of CRISPR (clustered regularlyinterspaced short palindromic repeats) technology.  Sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Tay-Sachs,and progeria are all devastating diseases that significantly shorten lifespans and impact quality-of-life. These diseases(as well as many more) could be prevented with the replacement of a single defective gene, which is possible with theuse of CRISPR. When it comes to examining the ethical dilemmas behind modifying human genes, numerous questions of ethics arise,from questions of free will and social justice, to definitions of disease versus human individuality.  For the purposes ofthis brief article, we will examine the ethical aspects of gene editing pertaining to human health. Recent surveys have shown that most people in the United States favor the use of gene editing for the purposes ofpreventing/curing disease.  The ethical dilemma begins when you start to question what constitutes a disease. Surelyany person would prefer to live without the above-mentioned conditions.  But what about more survivable conditionsthat confer a physical/health disadvantage, but ultimately allow a person to lead a happy and fulfilling life?Individuals with red hair have significantly greater pain sensitivity compared to others, are more prone to Parkinson’sdisease and skin cancer, and resistant to anesthetics.  Is that sufficient justification to delete gingers from the gene pool? The issue of gene editing is complex.  With the emergence of new technology that makes human modification at thegenetic level possible, it is essential to examine the possibilities, as well as the ramifications of these changes.  Millionsof years of evolution led to the growth of keen minds capable of immense reasoning and logic, and thousands of yearsof technological development have now rendered us capable of modifying the genome independently of natural forces. Poised to bypass millions of years of evolution with a single process, we must be aware of the effects this process willhave on our future as a species as well as a society. Are we ready for it?

P A G E 7

By Marisa C. DeGuzman, PhD

Maybe you love all things science and always have. But maybe you aren’t so in love with your research project right

now. Or maybe you’re looking for a way to convince a friend or loved one that science really is cool and it can make a

difference in their life and in the world. Give this a try: citizen science, the collaboration between the public and the

scientific research community. Volunteer to help research initiatives spanning ecology, medicine, psychology, genetics,

astronomy and more. You’ll get to enjoy the outdoors and put those selfies to scientific use by counting birds. Your kids

will look up at the sky while using the power of their smart phones to document cloud formations. You might revive

the love for your own research by telling your new citizen science buddies about it! You’ll certainly contribute to

something bigger than you, like species data needed to protect seahorses from trade-driven extinction or data to

support the global antislavery movement. Follow these links to learn more and find a project in your area.antislavery movement

protect seahorses

The ethical dilemma begins when you startto question what constitutes a disease.

As women continue their uphill climb into scientific career paths that have been male-dominated for centuries, wefind ourselves in a unique position as we enter motherhood.  While all mothers face challenges, at home or in theworkforce, as scientist-mothers, we struggle with experiences that are often directly related to our expertise. Asmedical researchers, we know how to explore the literature and judge scientific evidence with a discerning eye. Yet, aspatients, we are discouraged from questioning the professionals, even when we have comparable training to thosegiving the advice. Data suggests that our expertise could be the key to a new era of holistic maternity care, if only wewould be given the time of day. My first experiences with maternity care began when I became pregnant with my oldest child.  Like any well-trained scientist, I wanted to understand all about the process of pregnancy, labor, and delivery.  Unfortunately, what I quickly learned was that tradition and custom, rather than scientific evidence, dominates prenatal and maternity care in the United States.  While the medical community isrightfully celebrating drastic improvements in maternal mortality across the globe, in the United States we are failing our mothers and their babies.  According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the mortality rates that our mothers faced in the 80s and 90s have more than doubled today. The situation is particularly dire for black women, as was recently highlighted by the high-profile case of SerenaWilliams, a famous tennis player whose life-threatening postpartum concerns were dismissed by the medicalprofessionals entrusted with her care.  Serena Williams has no professional or scientific training, yet she was the onlyone who was able to identify the life-threatening blood clots she was experiencing. If she had not had thewherewithal to demand a CT scan from skeptical medical staff, she would not be here today, and her newborndaughter Alexis would never have the memory of her mother’s love. If this is the type of “care” that Serena Williamsreceived, it isn’t difficult to imagine why, on average, black mothers face mortality rates 3-4 times higher than theirwhite counterparts.  Her example of the necessity of self-advocacy is, regrettably, an important one for those of us whochoose to begin a family. I can’t speak for all mothers, but in my experience, the dismissal of mothers’ concerns and removal of their autonomybegins not with labor but as soon as pregnancy is confirmed (or long before that, during family planningappointments).  After two births and an untold number of pediatric appointments, I value those practitioners whotruly respect my credentials, provide informed consent at every step of the process, and practice sound, evidence-based medicine when it comes to maternal and infant care. Unfortunately, they have been terrifyingly few and farbetween.  Women who self-advocate for better maternity care or promote evolutionary sound practices, likebreastfeeding, drug-free birth and cosleeping, are often branded as selfish and troublesome, when in fact, the science ison our side. Trust in medical professionals is a delicate thing, and restoring it in the greater community begins with propermaternal care.  Mothers with science training are a drastically under-utilized resource in the medical community.What if we stopped dismissing them and labeling them as troublemakers? What if we intentionally sought tounderstand the experiences of these mothers? We would take an important first step to improving maternal health,breastfeeding, and the overall health of all babies. We must remember that it is our children who will carry theimprints of our choices long into adulthood.

P A G E 8

By Jessica Ponder, PhD

P A G E 9

By Bonnie L. Bullock, BA

As science evolves on a day-to-day basis, graduate students and postdocsmust navigate new technologies. In recent years, CU Anschutz hasincorporated platforms like single-cell RNA-sequencing, mass cytometry(Helios CyTOF), VECTRA, and advanced proteomics, and will soon add amultiplexed ion beam imaging (MIBI) system to its repertoire. As with any state-of-the-art technology, a question arises based on how

much expertise is necessary to analyze and comprehend generated data: should trainees learn to analyze it themselvesor leave this work to specialists? If the former, the graduate school offers a few bioinformatics courses to do so. If thelatter, collaborations with either bioinformatics or technical experts is necessary. Generally speaking, the campus haslacked a centralized approach to large scale data analysis—until recently. Though in its infancy, the University ofColorado Cancer Center Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource (UCCC BBSR) will serve as a centralized hubfor data analysis. Researchers will now be able to pay on a fee-for-service basis to have their raw data sets analyzed through a pipelinecrafted by the BBSR (at a discounted rate if they are UCCC members). In a demonstration this past February, Drs. Tanand Goodspeed showcased the first BBSR pipeline, which includes both over-representation and gene set enrichmentanalysis generated from raw RNA sequencing data files. They plan to develop more pipelines in the future for analysisof the most commonly used platforms on campus. While this demonstration looked extremely promising, there is still adesperate need for more bioinformatics support, specifically for cutting-edge technologies. For example, researchers will soon be able to use the MIBI system if they have Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded(FFPE) tissues. Each section from an FFPE tissue block is stained with stable earth metals that are conjugated to specificcellular markers (antibodies), alleviating issues relating to spectral overlap. Thus, researchers can discern up to 40different cellular markers in a single scan of a tissue section. MIBI preserves information regarding the spatialorientation of cells, unlike conventional flow cytometry or mass cytometry. Herein lies the problem: while CUAnschutz possesses this innovative technology, few technical experts have experience with the system in general, letalone on campus. Researchers will have to grapple with large data files that not only include phenotypic profiles ofindividual cells, but also their spatial location relative to every other cell in that tissue. For a novice, analyzing this typeof data will be extensive and difficult until a pipeline is created to assist in the process. Nevertheless, new technologies are here to stay. Postdocs and graduate students must decide if the ends truly justifythe means when it comes to learning the minutiae of large-scale data analysis.

UCCC BBSR

...the campus haslacked a centralizedapproach to large scaledata analysis—until recently.

P A G E 1 0

By Bonnie L. Bullock, BA

Impact Factor | Publication Models | Preprint Servers

Many new and well-seasoned academic researchers alike dream of publishing in mega-journals like Cell, Science andNature even once in their careers. Yet after analyzing a few high-impact papers in journal club as a first-year graduatestudent, this dream can unravel quickly. Every paper has holes, even those published in the acclaimed mega-journals.Students realize early on that an important name or journal does not equate to quality research in every case. So whatshould a young, blossoming academic strive for if not to publish in a high-impact journal? Trainees should always aim to publish quality reproducible data, whether these data’s final resting place is in Nature orPLoS One (Gasp!). Be aware that there is no shame in publishing in open-access journals like PLoS One. After all,taxpayers get direct access to research without the hassle of a pay-wall.   It is important to emphasize that not all research can provide the novelty and innovation high-impact journals arelooking for, but nevertheless remains necessary and important—even the negative data. The schematic above depicts guidelines for choosing the right publication model for one’s research and providesexamples of academic journals that fall under each category. Thus, it is important that graduate students and postdocs have open communication with their mentors regarding allpublication options for their work, particularly if either party feels very strongly about a particular option, such asaccess and reach versus “prestige.”

The apt PhD student often types into google “Journal X impact factor,” and finds the magic number quite rapidly.Beyond this sorcery, what does impact factor actually mean and should academics care in this day and age? Simply put, a journal’s impact factor for a specific year is calculated by the average number of citations in previousyears, usually two, divided by the total number of journal publications for that year.  Publications include researcharticles, reviews and commentaries, among others. For example, a journal’s 2019 impact factor could only bedetermined in 2020, using the average number of citations from 2017 and 2018 divided by the total number of journalpublications from 2019. There are just as many critics as proponents for using the impact factor as a quality metric. Some argue it showcases ajournal’s importance, while others believe the system is rigged in favor of journals that publish highly cited reviewarticles.  In especially niche fields, impact factors tend to be lower, though the importance of this research should not beunderstated. Nevertheless, trainees at all levels should probably focus less on impact factor and more on generating valuable data, nomatter where their research is ultimately published.

Impact Factor 2019 = Average Citations 2017-2018 / Total publications 2019

Increasing Access Level*Paywall Protected;

Profit Driven

e.g. Most journalspublished by Elsevier

Paywall Protected;

Community Driven

e.g. Molecular Biologyof the Cell

Open Access;

For Profit

e.g. Any journal inyour spam folder

Open Access;

Not for Profit

e.g. PLOS One, eLife,Life Science Alliance

P A G E 1 1

When a trainee submits a first-author paper, there is often excitement and relief, particularly if the manuscript makesit past editorial consideration. Next, the journal sends the manuscript for peer-review, which could be upwards of 4weeks. During this time, there is absolutely no insight as to the manuscript’s ultimate fate of acceptance, revision, orrejection. Alas, the preprint server upends traditional academic norms and allows authors to publish drafts of theirmanuscripts ahead of peer review. While preprint servers have been around since the 1990s, they have grown in popularity more recently (see graph). It isworth noting that in fields such as mathematics and physics, it is common practice to first put a preprint out on theseservers for field feedback prior to actual journal submission. This is newer and “scarier” to fields such as biology.  Thereare several benefits to publishing research ahead of peer-review, including greater public access to research and opendialogue between scientists. Importantly, preprint readers may recognize critical errors in manuscripts or makesuggestions to authors on how to improve their study if their manuscript is rejected. However, because not all journals have a welcoming preprint policy, it is critical to plan accordingly before submissionof manuscripts to a preprint server. Each manuscript is given a digital objective identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited and eventually cross-referenced to itsfinal format in the journal that accepts it for publication. Many proponents of preprint servers believe that they willonly continue to rise in popularity and importance. They also believe that preprints will help to bring research into anopen public forum, while still maintaining the importance of peer-review in science.

continued

Helpful Resources

Paige Cooper, PhD, former CU postdoc

Current Position: Program Director, Biosciences Collaborative for Research Engagement

(BioCoRE), Duke University, cooper.paige10@gmail.com

Interview By Rwik Sen, PhD

Why did you decide to pursue your current career?  I will preface this by saying I can't say Iactually have a career path or map I am pursuing. For me, it has been more about continuouslyconsidering my current work and what I want more or less of, and then making sure I am takingsteps towards that in my next role. So, during grad school and my postdoc I knew I didn't justwant to be at the bench, and I really enjoyed working with younger aspiring scientists. So, my

P A G E 1 2

first role out of my postdoc was working for a virtual STEM mentoring network, National Research Mentoring Network(NRMN), which allowed me to step away from the bench and focus more on supporting students and trainees. I learnedquite a bit there, and from that experience I also knew I wanted a chance to take more of a leadership role and workwith a cohort or set of students over time. This  led me to my current role as Program Director for STEM undergraduateand PhD students at Duke University in a program called Biosciences Collaborative for Research Engagement (BioCoRE).

What do you find most and least rewarding about your current career?  Trying to come up with programming that canhelp keep them motivated and/or adds to the skills they need outside the lab is quite enjoyable. In addition, I really get alot of satisfaction out of getting opportunities to help the students one on one: listening, asking questions, and providingencouragement and advice. A career in academia with a PhD but without the faculty rank is a tricky space to navigate.Not impossible, but from my perspective it does seem to mean fewer obvious paths forward. How did your scientific training prepare you for your current position? What other training/initiative was, or would

have been, helpful? I use my training most directly when helping undergraduate students prepare researchpresentations or when reviewing fellowship applications. But most of it is indirectly useful; for example, in being able totalk with students about their research, providing a broader perspective when a student wants advice on how to picktheir thesis lab, or helping students figure out the best way to solve conflicts with their PI.   In terms of preparation, if someone wants a similar role, I would say working on transferable skills is a must. Thingslike troubleshooting, communication, leadership, teamwork, etc. all come up frequently. Attending training sessions ortalks about mentoring and coaching is great. Additionally, getting a head start on branching out to learn about thebarriers faced by scientists with cultures and identities different from your own will serve you well. You will likely endup serving a whole host of students, and it will take work to serve each of them as best as you possibly can. But mostimportantly: the best preparation for doing this kind of work is getting experiences actually working with students byplanning events, hosting workshops, meeting with them one on one, etc. What do you think you will be doing 5 years from now?  One thing I do want to be doing more of in the next 5 years isfocusing less on the ground prepping and executing, and more time thinking and planning how to capture and measurehow effective the programs, events, and initiatives put in place actually are. That area of work is called programevaluation, and now that I have gotten a taste I am intent on building up skills to dive deeper in that area and incorporatemore of it into the work that I will do moving forward.  What advice would you give to a current CU Denver/Anschutz trainee who wants to transition to your

profession? For those broadly interested in serving and working with students outside of the lab (i.e., careerdevelopment, diversity and inclusion, outreach, etc.), START DOING IT! Finding small ways to volunteer with a sciencefair, being a poster judge for a summer research programs, or offering to host a workshop for graduate students are allgreat places to start. I promise that any office facilitating those efforts would welcome the extra help and those areexactly the types of "work experience" you can and should include on your resume/CV when you are looking to get onthe job market.

Katie Shives, PhD, 2015 CU graduate

Current position: Scientist, Viral Analytics Department, Sartorius Stedim Biotech

Interview By Ari Simenauer, BS

P A G E 1 3

scientist would entail and didn’t really know what day to day life was like in that role. Graduate school changed that forme pretty quickly as the realities of pursuing tenure became clear and I made the decision to leave academia behind andpursue a career as a scientist working in the Biotech industry.  As a Ph.D. student, did you ever envision yourself in your current position? What were some of the biggest factors

influencing your decision to transition to Industry? As a grad student I didn't know much about the options for PhDs,coming from the outside I only really knew about pursuing a career as an academic PI. Now that I'm here, I can't reallyimagine a much better fit for my personality and abilities. I'm so glad I found this.  I made the transition to industryprimarily because I saw that pursuing a tenure track career at an R01 institution was likely a road to misery for me and Iwas not willing to uproot my and my spouse's life chasing temporary postdocs on the statistical off-chance that I couldsomeday find a tenure track position. I saw the numbers and without external financial support, I knew that a postdocwould just lead to continued financial instability and stress. I did not work my way out of the boonies of Washingtonstate to chase something that would most likely leave me very unhappy and struggling financially. What do you find most and least rewarding about your current career? Least: The "other" stuff that detracts fromresearch, sometimes the paperwork needed to keep a larger company running can be cumbersome and take up a lot oftime. I’m an efficiency nerd so sometimes I struggle with what feel like inefficient processes but I deal with it byimproving whatever I can, which is actually really satisfying. Most: I’m still doing bench research with viruses, but nowinstead of one model organism I get to play with dozens of different species. I feel really fortunate that I get to continueworking in a subject that I’m really passionate about and it’s a direct continuation from my PhD work. What’s evenbetter is now I’m submitting patents and making products that support vaccine development and cell and gene therapyapplications, so now it feels like my work is directly benefiting human health. How did your scientific training prepare you for your current position? What other training/initiative was, or would

have been helpful? I think the most important thing I learned during graduate school was how to function withambiguity and a total lack of structure. My advisor wasn't in the lab much and I often jokingly referred to myself as "theferal grad student" due to my lack of supervision. It turns out that learning to structure my own time, prioritizeeffectively, and maintain a laser focus on results and not “time-in-the-lab” was key. Some students might not do as wellwith a lack of supervision and end up taking 7+ years to graduate, but I went the other way and managed to finish inunder 5 while working 40 hour weeks (including my weekends). I was pretty ruthless about this; I made a giant 8-weekcalendar out of tape on the big window next to my desk, wrote out daily and weekly schedules, and was always findingways to be more efficient in planning my experiments. This skill has been indispensable since as a PhD in industry I'mgiven the freedom to schedule my time but there is an absolute focus on what you deliver, not how much time you're inthe lab. Face time is meaningless without results.  What do you think you will be doing 5 years from now? Directing a research program in a biotech company orfounding my own biotech startup. What advice would you give to a current CU Denver/Anschutz trainee who wants to transition to your profession?

Start evaluating what you REALLY want to do, not just what you feel expected to do because you're getting a PhD.Figure out the kind of work you want to do and then contact people doing that kind of work to ask them how they gotthere and what they like and dislike about the work. Most importantly, be willing to leave your comfort zone. Academiais built with a clear path that can be tempting because it’s “known,” but making the jump to industry will be a stressfulprocess without any roadmap. You’re going to go into uncharted territory so embrace the discomfort and learneverything you can along the way. I didn’t have a job lined up when I defended (I got my offer a week after my defense)and it definitely felt like running full speed towards a cliff, but I had to be uncomfortable to grow or else I would havetaken the comfortable postdoc path and stayed unhappy. Don’t postpone the jump out of academia if you know that’swhat you want. A postdoc does not increase income when you jump to industry in most cases, and in some cases it canmake the transition more challenging. Is it difficult to make the jump? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely! I love the work I donow and can’t imagine going back.

Why did you decide to pursue your current career? I pursued my graduate education inMicrobiology because I wanted to do research that had an impact on human health. I initiallythought I was going to pursue being a professor and researcher, but this was mostly due to thefact that I come from a blue collar background and had a very romantic idea of what being a

P A G E 1 4

NIEHS studying mechanisms involved in stress signaling. From there she took a faculty position at Kansas StateUniversity and completed her MBA. She left her faculty position in 2015 to start a company in Colorado after her ownstruggles with infertility. Her company, MFB Fertility, Inc. has created a diagnostic tool that improves in-home ovulationmonitoring, empowering women to learn more about their fertility. Why did you decide to pursue your current career? During my postdoc days, I myself struggled with the problem ofinfertility. At that time, I realized there are lots of women who struggle with the same problem as me but there are notmany resources to help them out. Being a scientist myself, I was passionate about hormone signaling research andunderstood the science behind infertility very well. So I decided to use my background knowledge to develop a productthat can help women who are dealing with infertility. I did an MBA to venture into this mission and then I landed intothe world of business. What do you find most and least rewarding about your current career? So far, I am very happy with my current careerand it has been primarily a very rewarding experience. Most rewarding: When people thank me after using the product,I feel all my efforts have been of use for someone. Least rewarding: Owning a business is sometimes really hard, it needslot more commitment and time than a regular job. How did your scientific training help you in transitioning in your current role? My intense training during my PhDand postdoc have helped me develop a solid background on hormone signaling pathways. My understanding of thescience of infertility has definitely given me more confidence to pursue the business ideas. Moreover, my scientifictraining as a research associate in a pharmaceutical company also prepared me for my current role. What advice would you give to a current graduate student/postdoc who wants to transition to your profession? Iwould like to tell them that if you have a passion for something, then you must go for it. If you are passionate about thework you are doing then the work will be more like fun. I encourage all students to think outside the box and urge themto talk to various people who they think can be helpful in guiding them in the right path. What are some hobbies or leisure activities you enjoy outside of work? I have two kids and I love to spend time withthem. I love swimming, traveling and working out during my leisure time.

Dr. Amy Beckley is the owner and CEO of MFB Fertility, Inc. She earned a bachelor's degree inBiology at UC San Diego in 2001. She then worked as a Research Associate at Celgene, Inc.studying small molecule drug targets in blood cancers. She earned a PhD in Pharmacology in2007 at CU Denver. Amy's thesis advisor was Dr. William Scheimann and her project wasunderstanding signaling pathways that led to breast cancer metastasis. Amy's postdoc was at the

Reviewed By Marisa C. DeGuzman, PhD

Amy Beckley, PhD, 2007 CU graduate

Current position: Owner and CEO, MFB Fertility, Inc., www.mfbfertility.com

Interview By Nabanita Mukherjee, PhD

www.mfbfertility.com

As young trainees, it’s not always easy to imagine our seasoned mentors ever struggling with their scientificskills and knowledge or external social and systemic obstacles. In other words, it’s hard to see them oncehaving been in our inexperienced and insecure shoes. In this biography, follow the inspiring career of Dr. EveMarder in her trailblazing success in neuroscience. Her graduate rotation project may have flopped, and she may stilldescribe her international postdoc as a scientific failure. But no matter how her results wavered, she always upheld herexperimental philosophy - “Let the data speak, let the data drive the questions.” With perseverance, she became a fullprofessor at age 42 and president of the Society for Neuroscience in 2008. While the lobster model physiology can becomerather dense if it’s unfamiliar territory, it’s worth marching through to envisage this clear depiction of anothergeneration’s experience. The pace of science was less rushed and more pensive. Dr. Marder was limited by the power ofher techniques, so she was creative and intentional with her hypotheses and interpretations, using her distinctive“rigorous forensic reasoning.” This book will remind you that the “greats” in the field have had their days of doubt, even ifthe culture and expectations in science have evolved. Dr. Marder’s story will move you to remain imaginative with yourquestions, excited about your data (be they positive or negative), and optimistic about your purpose in the field.

to Nature, are often written by individuals with scientific training. “I didn’t even know science writing existed until I

read a story in Nature by Ed Yong,” Dengler recalls. “My first thought was, I want to do that!”

Both Wortman-Wunder and Dengler note that opportunities available through their graduate schools and first jobs out

of school can present opportunities that can land you your first writing assignments. Dengler wrote her first news clips

with UCB’s Science Buffs, a graduate student-run blog, which allowed her to build a portfolio to secure internships at PBS

News Hour and Science. “Once I started writing and realized I liked it, I pursued every opportunity I could to advance my

writing.” She has written dozens of articles for these publications, and is now a regular contributor to Discover magazine

and RealClearScience. Wortman-Wunder’s first journalistic articles were about the birds she studied as an

undergraduate. “Specializing in a particular topic can help you stand out,” she notes. Wortman-Wunder has since built a

varied and award-winning portfolio, which includes fiction, essays, and journalistic pieces.

Editing is another way to secure income as a science writer, which Wortman-Wunder has found success with. She first

edited grants as a CSU Biology student, which led to her writing grants for professors as her next job. “I became a grant

writer by editing grants,” she says. “You can edit grants for professors, theses for fellow students, or manuscripts for ESL

scientists,” says Wortman-Wunder. “You can charge by the word or by the hour.”

Both Wortman-Wunder and Dengler are adamant that success in science journalism requires a great deal of hustle.

“Freelance writing is generally only possible if you have outside funding,” admits Wortman-Wunder. “Even in the few

decades I have been doing science journalism, the rates have been cut in half.” Location is also a challenge. “If you don't

want to live in New York City or D.C., where most staff jobs are, you have to be ok with a certain degree of financial

insecurity,” says Dengler, who had to leave her home in Colorado to complete her DC-based internships.

Is all this hustling even worth it? To Wortman-Wunder and Dengler, the answer is yes. “Science writing enables me to

combine my two passions [of writing and learning] into a job”, says Dengler. “As a freelancer, I’m also able to make my

own schedule—with deadlines, of course.”

Overall, the key to success is to practice writing. “Online-only publications can be a good place to build a portfolio,” says

Wortman-Wunder. Dengler advises to “Start a blog. It doesn’t matter if no one reads it.” Writing practice can also be

obtained through your campus newspaper—The PhD Post, for example.

Roni Dengler, PhD can be reached on Twitter: @RoniDengler

Emily Wortman-Wunder, MA can be reached at Emily.Wortman-Wunder@ucdenver.edu

By Liz Terhune, MS

P A G E 1 5

Writing is an essential skill required of almost any scientist.

Grants, manuscripts, press briefs, and news clippings all fall

under the umbrella of science writing.

The path into this industry, however, can be mysterious.

Here, we discuss helpful tips from two science writers:

Emily Wortman-Wunder, BA, MFA, journalist, author and

instructor of the CU Denver course Writing in the Sciences,

and Roni Dengler, PhD, freelance science journalist and

2017 CU Boulder MCDB graduate.

Science journalism conveys science to a general audience.

These news articles, which can appear in outlets from NPR 

...the key tosuccess is to

practicewriting.

P A G E 1 6

Editors:

Liz Terhune & Marisa DeGuzman

Content Management:

Iain Konigsberg

Web Management:

Kelsey Barcomb

Proofreading:

Amena Keshawarz, Bonnie Bullock, Jenny Samson & IainKonigsberg

Art:

Liz Wheatley

Advisors:

Bruce Mandt & Inge Wefes

By Laurissa Hughes & Breanna Symmes, PhD

The opinions stated in all articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the PhD Post advisors, PhD Post affiliates, or the University of Colorado