Joseph F. Clark, Ph.D.

There is no better feeling in science than to see weeks of planning a new experiment come together in one day’s work to produce data. To be more correct, one datum.

We’ve been working for weeks building a prototype, and developing the experimental conditions in which we could test the prototype. The test conditions were as close to real life as we could get in a system scaled down in size to keep costs reasonable and manageable electronics in the prototype.

We had 5 scientists involved in overseeing the electronics, probes, monitors and the model system being examined. As a first ever experiment none of us knew what to do, what our roles really were, what to expect or even when things would be “done.” I think everyone felt we knew what a success would look like and that there were a thousand ways it would fail, but as with most very new things the failures are expected but provide information for the next try. For example on an earlier dry run to test the equipment we found out that the prototype seemed to work better with the $50.00 components as opposed to the $1000.00 parts. Give me a call if you need some slightly used $1000.00 parts.

Much to our astonishment we saw a huge, consistent and importantly explainable response with the prototype. Explainable is a key aspect to the success in that we need to summarize and report the results to make them useful. Random unexplainable results are not useful, our results need to be useful and not random, which they are.

What we saw is a simple numeric change. Picture a bunch of eyes looking at a slot machine and the wheel comes up with three $$$; a jackpot. We saw a number come up on the computer screen that represented a jackpot. Computer programs examined and confirmed the results and the model performed admirably.

What we saw is hard to explain without getting too technical and is also being patented, so it is confidential. But one little datum represented weeks of work, many hours of detailed planning and much excitement. Well, I say excitement but that is relative for us stuffy science geek types.

The postscript to one datum is that one experiment is not significant. We need to reproduce the results multiple times, determine prototype tolerances, specs and optimize performance. That will take months of work and eventually seeing the same response as today’s will become routine. But it was a good day and something to be savored.

The US federal government has a federal mandate via the Bayh-Dole act (Bayh-dole act 35 u.s.c. 202). This act of congress from 1986 grants universities and institutions funded by the US government to do research to keep, own and develop their intellectual property. Thus if you have a federal grant, make a discovery and patent that discovery the University owns that patent. The inventor does not own it, but in the act it is stated that the inventors must benefit from the invention.

This is a federal law. If I or the university were to break this law we would risk fines and other penalties.

The act also goes on to say that the Federal government keeps strings to the invention such that it can use it if needed, and that the invention must be developed. With regard to the government’s use of an invention, this is referred to as “march in rights” where the feds can take or use an invention for national security. It also has the right to use it anywhere in the world or get the chance to license that technology anywhere in the world. The stipulation that the invention must be developed is an important one in that if a big company has competing technology it is against federal law for that big company to buy that technology and hide it so that they can use their technology, at a higher price. This is called, “buy it and bury it” in the business. So federally funded discoveries are not lost or swallowed by bigger conglomerates.

In an effort to facilitate development of technologies the Bayh-Dole act also mandates that preference for licensing and developing opportunities of federally funded discoveries be given to small US owned companies. This economic stimulation has been a boon to the technology sector allowing many small technology (biotech) companies to be formed and flourish. Excluding the bursting of the tech bubble this has been a huge economic stimulus because bright technology folks can work in universities and make discoveries and be allowed if not encouraged to develop those discoveries. Who is better qualified to develop my invention than me? The answer is no one.

If this were a love story I would close with, “and they lived happily ever after.” Unfortunately that is not the end. A backlash has occurred with scientists and inventors being involved in developing their own discoveries. This is the issue of compliance and is the heart of the new Catch 22 in academia.

Compliance laws, are often university or state laws that say a scientist cannot be involved in a company with royalty or equity or stock options and do research to support that discovery. What do I mean by that? Well, if I make a discovery of a new blood test using federally funded money the university is obliged to patent that discovery per the Bayh-Dole act. So that a big company does not buy it and bury it, a small US based company is formed to develop that discovery. Remember this is mandated by the Bayh-Dole act with preference to small companies. If I buy stock in that company or consult with that company to help develop that technology I am in breach of conflict of interest. If I write a grant to the company to fund research on that subject I am in breach of conflict of interest. The state and university regulations on conflict of interest say that I cannot work on developing that technology. However, if I do not work on that technology it is not developed. Therefore I am in breach of the Bayh-Dole act.

Please remember a very important part of this story, if I made the discovery I am the expert on this discovery there is no one else in the world who can develop this better than me. So, yes, ladies and gentlemen a classic Catch 22 exists because I must patent and develop discoveries made with federal funds. However, I am not allowed to be involved in developing those technologies because of state and university rules on conflict of interest. Me not being involved in developing the technology breaches Bayh-Dole by failing to develop federally funded technology.

My choices are clear; I can go to a federal penitentiary or a state prison. If anyone reading this wants to argue the point or say it is not this bad, check out the blog by Phil Cola where his cure for compliance issues is to make sure the intellectual leaders of a discovery do not lead the research. http://www.medcitynews.com/index.php/page/2/?s=conflict+of+interest.

It is that bad and this is a catch 22.

There is an old saying that those who can do; those who can’t teach. While I’m not too sure about that, there is an interesting paradigm in higher education. That is the highest level scientists in the USA tend to be successful scientists and researchers by spending time doing research, writing grants and papers. The high profile scientists are used as recruiting tools to attract the best students, however it is relatively rare for those researchers to spend time teaching students. Students are the Farm Team for any research enterprise but the students tend to be taught by faculty who are doing relatively little research.

So the best scientists do science; or those who can do research do it. Whereas those who may not be able to get their research funded are relegated to teaching duties; thus fulfilling the old saying above.

That is just sad.

The students are often exposed to senescing professors teaching what the administration has forced on them to meet departmental teaching commitments. Many Departments in the so called research institutions will have big offices and labs for the successful research faculty but little offices or facilities for the teaching faculty. This leaves the teaching faculty, who are valuable contributors to the operations of any institution of higher education, feeling second class. Such feelings can be sensed by the students and result in disincentivizing future scientists.

I actually like to teach and would like to do more student instruction. However, my research is relatively well funded and I am discouraged from taking on teaching duties. It just does not bring in as much money as research. When I was a junior faculty member I did more teaching and found that the students challenged me and that I could connect with students who would sometimes end up working with me.
About ten years ago I taught a first year student who was very bright and engaging. He has since worked with me, published with me and we continue to collaborate. As I said above, students are the farm team and I treat them like potential peers. Now unfortunately, I get little chance to teach and pretty much only do mentoring of graduate students and participating in thesis committees.

So the take home message from above is:
1. If you are a student, use your primary teachers as resources but remember to look at other faculty members in your research institutions. Some of us like students.
2. If you are a department chair and you feel that the department is not attracting the best students – perhaps you should look closely at the faculty who interface the most with those students. Try to know and learn how to plant seeds with the farm team.
3. If you are a teaching faculty member try to learn how to farm the students you are teaching.
4. Finally if you are a research faculty do take on teaching opportunities and use that time to recruit the cream of the crop in those classes.

Peaks and Valleys.

The whole lifestyle of college professors and most academics is a series of peaks and valleys. We are exuberant with successes like funded grants and exciting research data. Conversely we live with constant rejection from failed experiments, rejected papers and grant applications. So the peaks really need to outweigh the depths reached in the valleys.

Along with being thick skinned from the rejections one must also be long term goal oriented. Instant gratification is not the hallmark of research. A scientist can spend an entire career trying to (and sometimes failing to) answer a single research question. Most research projects take years to complete. So for three years of hard work the end will be either a very high – high or extremely low – low.

In medical research 1 in 10,000 drug candidates are successful whereas 1 in 100 pre-clinical studies shows promise. When negative results are obtained these are often not publishable. So much time can be lost. A failed trial cannot be considered a failed scientist. Publish or perish is part of life for medical research but so is “get funding or get lost.” Without substantial grant funding the research will stop and the position will be ended. With pressure like that we really need to celebrate the successes.

So along with a kind of manic lifestyle being a college professor is also a lot like a small business. You need to have a revenue stream to keep the business afloat and a pipeline of new things to stay ahead of the competition.

What I have personally found is that my best ideas and my most creative inspirations come when I am not intimately focused on the day to day life of grant writing, paper writing and University duties. On the rare occasion when I can spend some time in the lab or literally cleaning my office as opposed to churning out words on the computer I get relevant ideas. All I seem to need is a little breathing room and time to let new discoveries germinate in my head. But with a fairly strict requirement of 8 grant proposals per year, 5 publications per year, 6 thesis committees per year and endless training in-services there is no time to let the creative juices flow.

Time management seems to be focused on squeezing in as much traditional work product as possible. However, I posit that the same time management skills some strive for takes away from discovery oriented productivity. So managing time to allow for productive down time needs to be protected from intrusions of external factors.

I need to relate an ancient anecdote I picked up somewhere to make a point. A senior administrator of a large company based in a metropolitan high-rise frequently observed a middle manager standing and staring out his office window. The boss never saw this employee at his desk working. Finally the boss notified management that this employee was to be terminated because he was never working. The employee’s direct managers informed the boss that this employee had come up with several money saving strategies as well as a couple of new revenue opportunities for the company. That this employee continues to come up with novel and new ideas and that these ideas often seemed to “hit” him while standing in front of that window. The financial value of this employee was clearly put to the boss and the managers waited to see if the termination would proceed.

Upon hearing this, the boss got on the phone and called the window washers to make sure that his new star employee always had a clean and unobstructed view from his office.

We all need time to let subtle ideas bubble up to our consciousness.

Can someone please tell me what type of job is there that can never be outsourced, but is present in every country in the world? What is the profession where the whole world is united in one language and one goal? When can you be paid to travel to some of the most beautiful places on earth and talk to the great minds on the planet and be an equal? What discipline is always in the progressive forefront breaking glass ceilings and perceived barriers? How can you have a career and be part of the greater good?

Anyone have some answers to those questions? How about one single answer to all those questions? The single answer: Medical and scientific research.

Yes for those of us lucky enough to be engaged in medical research we are all of those things. With my Ph.D. in physiology from Michigan State University (Go Spartans) I’ve been able to live in Europe for 10 years with stints in Paris (J’aime Paris), Moscow and Oxford. During that time I learned French, some Russian and an enormous amount about various cultures. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I grew as a scientist from all that I had learned in those places.

If you can find a position doing work as a science geek doing medical research you’ll find it is a nice gig. I highly recommend it.

I’m 48 years old and I do not want to or plan to wind down my life. By many standards I guess I can be considered successful but I want more. Mind you, I’m not unhappy, but rather not done yet.

I see people who are my age counting time to retirement and coasting in their jobs without an original or new thought. Like a slow boat leaving no wake, they have no interest in anything new or even changing their daily routines. While I love routines and find comfort in them, I get bored with them and look for new ones. I consider my stagnant colleagues as “walking retired.” Maybe that is mean or maybe that is my defense mechanism to stay on my game. Either way I’m working to avoid stagnation.

What do I do to keep up with the twenty-somethings coming up through the ranks? Hopefully it is the same thing I did when I was a twenty-something. I work hard to see what others are doing and also try to find new things to do and pursue. In my profession of medical research there are scientists who work their entire lives on one problem. This focused specialization has its benefits but it has drawbacks too. One of the biggest drawbacks that I see with such linear professional pursuits is that external forces could suddenly make what you do superfluous. I’ve seen it several times where a person focuses on one field and that field dies or is over taken by new technology. Simple diversification prevents that. Without being diversified in my daily work and recreational activities I feel ossified.

I guess I’m at a stage in life where many males my age experience some kind of mid life crisis. I do not think that is happening to me or it has been happening to me since I was in my 20s. At 48, I regularly engage in martial arts and still spar with the college students. I exercise regularly and have outside interests. I made a promise to myself in 1982 to never be bored with nothing to do. Actually it was a new years resolution and I’ve been very good at keeping that resolution.

More to the point, as a professor of neurology, a stakeholder in a biotech company, a property owner and landlord, as well as a published author; I plan to continue to try new things. To a certain extent that is the story of my life. I adopt an activity for a period of time; gain a level of proficiency in it and move on. Some things stick with me for life and some languish waiting to be resurrected. You may consider this behavior as eclectic, immature, schizophrenic or admirable, nonetheless, it keeps me happy and productive. What can I say; Book 2 anyone? To quote Monty Python, “Always look on the bright side of life,” … “I’m not dead yet.”

There are few acute medical conditions that can quickly cause a young healthy adult to die. A non exhaustive list of these are: ruptured appendix, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombolism, ectopic pregnancy, heat stroke, stroke, heart attack (sudden cardiac arrest), and meningitis. With this blog being about neurologic emergencies I posit as significant that 3 of those have neurologic components. Stroke, meningitis and heat stroke are all neurologic emergencies with a risk of rapid or sudden death involving brain damage. With prompt intervention all three have treatment options with reasonable expectation of good outcomes.

Heat stroke is a condition that can produce core body temperatures in excess of 107°C. Such temperatures are lethal to brain cells. The diagnosis of heat stroke is relatively straight forward: high body temperature and often a lack or cessation of sweating. The acute treatment can be as simple as controlled cooling with maintenance of hydration. So intense levels of diagnostic and therapeutic technology are not needed to address this condition, but I wanted to bring it up here because it is a case where time is brain and treatment is key and therefore worth the brief reminder.

The diagnosis of ischemic versus hemorrhagic stroke is more complicated and currently requires fairly advanced imaging technologies. There is also interest in differentiating these strokes in the pre-hospital and acute settings without the need or delay of imaging. This is pivotal because the treatments are drastically different. Ischemic stroke can be treated with rt-PA and hemorrhagic stroke needs to be evaluated for neurosurgical intervention. Being wrong could be catastrophic because giving rt-PA to a hemorrhagic stroke patient might lead to much more hemorrhaging.

Meningitis is a condition that currently can take days to diagnose. Typically with a high suspicion of meningitis the physician will start a patient on antibiotics without knowing the cause or presence of an infection. After culturing the spinal fluid an infection and microbe can be identified and only then the treatment tailored to the patients’ condition. While often a medical emergency the pre-hospital practitioner is at this time limited in transport to appropriate medical facility and supportive care.

In conclusion neurologic emergencies can have improved outcomes when the pre-hospital community is actively involved in care, diagnosis, treatment and transport of these patients. Importantly there is a lot of room to grow in these areas with exciting technologies on the horizon. Part of my goal with this blog is to bring these new technologies up as they start coming on line, so please stay tuned.

So I’m sitting in a meeting but it is not a meeting. The clock reads 1:04 and the meeting should have started at 1:00. No one else is here, so I check my calendar to ensure that I am in the right place. I’ve got the right room and right time but am alone nonetheless. I’m used to people being late, but the whole contingent of 8 people are missing from the meeting. By the way, it is now 1:07.

How long should I wait? It reminds me of the old rule of thumb we had in college concerning waiting for a professor who was late for class. As I recall a class would wait 5 minutes for an assistant professor, 10 minutes for an associate professor, 15 minutes for a full professor. If the lecture was to be given by a teaching assistant the wait would be about 2 minutes. But I am still alone at 1:09.

How much longer should I wait is now becoming less significant and I am wondering if I should declare myself a quorum and make some decisions. Well, the reason I do not do that is because the meeting is one of the overwhelming majority of meetings where no decisions are usually made. Ideas will be bounced around, complaints vetted and tasks assigned. Then another meeting would be scheduled to see who actually completed their assignments. Actually I could do something. I could task everyone with other action items as if the meeting had occurred. So at 1:13, lucky thirteen, I started writing up assignments for the absent members. By 1:15 I had finished the action items and before I pack up and leave a bunch of the committee members arrive and I tuck my action item list away and greet the tardy attendees.

At 2:47 the late starting 1:00 meeting concludes. What struck me most is the action items from the meeting very closely matched the made up ones I had decided upon and they matched in that I had assigned them to the same people who ended up with them. The only two exceptions were the two action items I got stuck doing from the real meeting whereas I did not assign any tasks to myself.

The take home message I get from this is that any 1.5 hr meeting can be replaced by spending 10 minutes of creative delegating.

My lab is developing diagnostic devices for neurologic emergencies and we can task them to do certain things. Generally a diagnostic can provide information about how to Triage a patient, Where or how to Transport the patient and how to Treat the patient. So locally we talk about the three Ts.

Just to be clear, Triage may be for deciding if a person needs to be taken to a trauma center or nearest medical facility. Transport may be to help decide if a patient requires a helicopter or ground transport. Alternatively it might mean a patient that needs swoop and scoop versus on scene management. Treatment is providing diagnostic information to dictate treatment.

So the question comes down to this. If you ran my lab which ONE of the three Ts should we work on. Alternatively if you work in the field, which one of the Three Ts causes you the most headache.

Please go to the contact section of my web site or comment here on the blog with your answer and or opinion. www.josephfclark/com/contact

thanks

Joe

Ever wonder what esoteric erudite academics do to challenge ourselves? No, I guess that is not a burning question on society’s psyche. But, I’ll enlighten you anyway because it is entertaining in a juvenile and jovial way.

I was with a group of junior researchers in Oxford England and we were comparing our academic conquests in terms of conferences attended, papers presented and invited lectures. The group consisted of 3 males and one female. I have to admit the bragging and boisterous bravado reminded me of high school when boys would brag about “being with” girls. Yes there was most definitely some escalating and embellishment going on. Eventually, we came up with a contest amongst ourselves. The stakes were simply our undying admiration but the challenge was worthy of the challenge in Jules Vern’s around the world in 80 days.

The challenge was to see who could go to the farthest and most unique all expenses paid lecture to present an invited paper abroad during the coming year. The rules were simple; get invited to give a paper abroad but have the host pay for the privilege. No one needed to prove anything about the trip concerning invoices etc. This was a gentleman’s (and one lady) agreement.

It was a fun and educational year. I do not recall who won but I can say that we traveled multiple times to many exciting and exotic places. Throughout Europe, Japan, South Africa, USA (remember we are in England), North Africa (Algeria) and Brazil.

Yes that is a geeky thing to do but tons of fun and it was an education for me. I think all four of us learned that as native English speakers people in non-English speaking countries wanted to hear what we had to say and they wanted to hear it in English. English is the international language of science and technology and we are fortunate to be able to do what we do in our native tongue.

• Another academic game you can play is to spot the alliterations in my blog above. How many can you find?