Joseph F. Clark, Ph.D.

I’m currently working on a fairly large grant application for a company. The company wants me to do research on a subject on which I am very comfortable and knowledgeable. The process of writing and securing a research agreement with a company is much different than with the NIH, NSF or most charitable foundations. I am in regular communication with the company people and we went from a large number of research options and now are focused on a narrow research field based on the labs capabilities and the company’s needs. The negotiations went from a wish list, a broad but feasible program to a focused and manageable research project.

Because there are patent and intellectual property issues involved I need to refrain from talking about the company or its product. Hopefully the details will be public soon, but the absence of that information should not diminish the significance of this story.

The goal of the grant and research program is to help the company demonstrate that one of its drugs works. It is actually very exciting to be involved in planning and hopefully executing research that will be part of a body of evidence to support treating patients. I went into medical research to “help people” and I have continuously worked in areas where my work might be useful to benefit people and some of my work has been used clinically. I could have a substantial role in getting these new treatments to the patients and help them.

The company sponsored research grant has not been awarded yet, but I have been privileged to perform research for companies previously and can describe how subsequent steps are expected to proceed.

Soon we should settle on the research my lab will do for the company and the questions to be answered for the company. These questions and the answers from the research are called milestones. The milestones will tell us what steps to take subsequently in the research program for eventually treating patients. Once the research and sought after milestones are decided upon we will negotiate the budget and time line for the work. This is important because we need to cover costs in the proposal. The time line discussion is also important because the lab cannot stop completely what it is doing on other projects to work on the company’s grant.

This process is highly civilized but not guaranteed to result in grant funding from the company. It is very common for companies to solicit multiple scientists to see what they can get done at the best possible price. However, the odds of getting such a grant are much better than from the NIH or traditional funding agencies. Company grant success rates are about 33% whereas the NIH is between 1 and 10% right now. So, I’ll take my chances with the odds for company funding. To be blunt there are only two or three people in the world who could do the research program I am negotiating with the company and I’m sure that at least one of the others is NOT being engaged by the company, so I estimate my odds to be 50/50 for this grant.

What helps me, I think, with the process of getting company grants is that I have done this before and to a certain extent I “speak business” with the company. The company knows that I know that I am like a contractor being hired to build a house and that this research is the start with the foundation. I have to build the foundation solidly and get it done on time before moving on the framing the house. Eventually the house in this analogy will be an FDA approved drug helping patients.

My advantage in this negotiation with the company is that I have taken the time to learn something about the business of science. I took classes and read on the subject and it has been immensely useful for me. Therefore, I firmly believe that part of the education of scientists and researchers should be how to do commercializable research. This is important for science entrepreneurs as well as when working with companies. The other education that is needed in academics concerning commercially funded research is that it is not dirty money when doing research for a company. This is an absolutely requisite step to get a drug approved by the FDA and I believe it is an honor to play a role doing this. We need more useful work like this and I’m excited to play a part in this process.

OK, so I went back and looked at some of the blogs I posted over the past few months. It became fairly obvious to me that I have focused on the difficulties and battles that dominate my life as a college professor and full time researcher. Unfortunately I have failed to highlight the numerous positive aspects of my job. Without question or reservation, I love my job and would not trade it for anything. So giving mention to these highlights is easy and long overdue.

There are some fantastic aspects to being a college professor doing medical research. No two days are the same so the job has incredible diversity and challenge. Boredom is never an issue. I actually have a lot of control over my day to day schedule and the structure of my job, so I can come and go when I want – to a great extent. There are meetings that need to be made but some days I can sleep in and work late, or get to work early and leave when I want. The key is to be productive writing grants, papers and the like.

I am privileged to work with some fantastic and gifted people and some great students. It is quite gratifying to watch and mentor burgeoning scientists as they develop. Their successes become my success.

One of the biggest buzzes I get professionally is when I get a chance to impact on people’s lives. My entire career has been working with the ethos to “help people” and I am getting to see some of this work benefit people. The hope that more work will be able to help even more people keeps me going.

Just to be playful and complete; I want to do something different with this blog. That is, I will add to it and update it to bring up new positive aspects about what I do. So please feel free to come back and see if/how the list below grows. My hope is that I will be able to frequently give positive mentions about the college professor lifestyle.

1. With my job, I am doing what I wanted to do when I was a kid. I regularly tell people, “the man became what the little boy wanted to be.” What more could anyone ask for?

2. My job and career has allowed me to travel all over the world. I’ve lived and worked in Paris France, Oxford England, Moscow Russia, Tokyo and Nagoya Japan. In my first post doc I lived in Paris and learned a language and culture as well as learning from successful scientists.

3. I was at a scientific conference recently and met a unique and colorful guy with a vision focused on developing novel therapies for patients with neurologic emergencies such as traumatic brain injury, stroke and seizure. It was a highly stimulating and energetic conversation that gives me hope for the future of developing new things for those patients. It is just so cool to be privy to some of the cutting edge things that are on the horizon.

4. We had an awesome response the first time we tried a new experiment. It is great to see a new bit of data. Please check out the blog, “The Story of the Datum” for more info.

A well trained scientist with a Ph.D. or similar advanced degree and research experience has been trained to identify a problem, formulate a hypothesis, which is an interrogation of said problem, test the hypothesis and learn from the observations. This process requires open minded thought through and around complicated subjects and to understand cause and effect. If you change one thing, other things must change, is a concept that scientists are very familiar with. For politicians they change a bill or a law to increase its appeal for some other law makers. A solution is to throw money at a problem and let other people sort out details. But we need detail oriented minds in congress and less capricious spending.

Scientists are trained to be experts in a focused field of study but understand how that focus impacts the big picture. Therefore scientists are likely better able to see problems with details or gaps in the big picture. A scientist engaged in writing a research paper is trained to acknowledge the opinions of others or even weaknesses in a concept. This can be applied to making laws or policy such that the greatest good for society can be achieved.

Vote Geek.

Patients who donate their bodies to science and/or agree to participate in clinical trials are my heroes. I say that with the conviction of a scientist who has directly benefited from their benevolence. To do the research that I do on stroke I have collected hundreds of litres of human Cerebral Spinal Fluid (CSF) from over 200 patients. With this large repository of CSF, my team and I have discovered a new family of molecules in stroke patients that may be the cause of lethal stroke complications.

I could have never made that discovery without the generosity of the patients and their families. With work, and luck, the I may be able to save the lives of thousands of stroke patients in the USA annually. Some day in the not too distant future companies will be making devices and drugs designed to diagnose and treat stroke complications based on the molecules we’ve discovered in the CSF of those 200 stroke patients.

There is a growing concern in research about activities like mine. That is, some people think that the discoveries made with a patient’s samples belong to the patients and not the scientists who toil for years to make possible life saving discoveries.

The argument from lawyers becomes convoluted and suggests that the patients’ own whatever is discovered after donating bodies and tissues to science. Some are saying that if the scientists do not completely explain that new the things found in the samples will be sold to companies to make devices and drugs then the patients’ own the new molecules and discoveries. Scientists are also required to try to explain what those new discoveries will be before doing the research, which is pretty much impossible. The scientists have two responses to this. First we can’t predict what if any discovery will be and second; I’m not doing the research to “own the discoveries” because the University owns all of my discoveries.

If I’m not allowed to work on my discoveries than why should I try to discover things? Lawyers are taking away my incentive to make discoveries. To protect against such ownership disputes many universities now have a huge legal document signed by patients, donors and their families to transfer all ownership to the University. These documents can become so thick and onerous that patients and families refuse to participate any longer because of the sheer volume of words and fear of signing legal documents. The result is that the lawyers are now making it such that I cannot get samples to do my research.

That is just sad.

My career went from a scientist trying to work with patients and families in search of answers as to the causes of stroke complications to being made to feel like a thief stealing from unwitting victims for my own personal gain. Nonetheless to the patients and their families who donate; thank you. You are my heroes.

In science ideas are like a currency and often better than money. A scientist is only as valuable as their NEXT idea. Yes, I said next idea.

Once the idea is made public it is no longer novel and loses value. If the idea is not patented it can be taken by anyone and changed to form a new concept or completely different idea. Even a patented idea can be changed and taken over by competitors.

“So what” you ask?

This idea currency phenomenon produces a paranoia amongst scientists. We do not want to share our ideas in publications, presentations or grant applications for fear of losing them. Let me address how this affects the grant writing and grant review process.

Say for example I’ve identified a protein switch that turns on a gene to kill cancer cells. Thus my research and idea could lead to a new cancer treatment. Maybe save thousands of lives some day. But when I write the grant to the nih on this subject I say something less clear. I propose to study the on / off ability of the protein switch. The control of the protein switch is suggested to be important in developing future therapies.

What is missing is how the gene is involved to kill cancer cells. There are lots and lots of protein switches and we often do not know what they do, so the key to the idea is that I have linked the switch to the gene to the cancer etc. That is my valuable idea and I want it to stay secret so I do not tell the NIH grant reviewers the whole story so they cannot steal it.

If I’m luck enough to get money from the federal government to do the research I might do some research on the gene step too, but still not make the idea public. Like many scientists I do this to protect my ideas. On the other hand if the grant proposal is not funded I might eventually be forced to disclose my idea. The problem is that with too radical an idea the grant proposals I submit are often not funded because I’m asking to prove it works.

Now, the Catch 22 (thank you Joseph Heller). Without funding I can’t prove my idea but without proving the idea works I will not be awarded funding. That is also why I try to not tell the whole story in a grant proposal to the NIH. Between concern for scientists taking good ideas, or not funding them if they are too new, the grant and funding system becomes a barrier to creativity.

So like a used car salesman I tell the powers that be what they want to hear and try to not give too much information.

Right now my colleagues and I have a radical new idea we want to try. I am not going to disclose it here obviously but it could be a big breakthrough. How do you think I am going to pay for this research work to be done?

Quite frankly it is so big we are going to try to fund it ourselves and keep it top secret for as long as possible. The general public suffers because of this. If I could trust funding agencies to help get the work funded and done I could engage more people in the form of research collaborators to get the work done faster. But as it is we will work quietly on the problem which means a new technology will be slower to reach the public.

In Shannon Burke’s novel, “Black Flies” he talks about an event that he claims occurs to all EMS personnel. First, I completely agree with his description and think that he gives a great insight into what happens when a person endures an ambulance call that has the potential to change the people involved. The job changes you and how you manage that change dictates if and how you progress in the job. It could make you better at providing care or turn you away from the job. In truth the above is not a strict dichotomy but is more of a continuum.

I recently learned about the deaths of two professional colleagues whom I knew and admired when I was an EMT. They were both senior to me and people I respected and admired. Unfortunately they both died from complications of alcohol over use. Presumably the emotional toll with years of human misery for some reason resulted in taking some solace in drinking. Maybe they might have been heavy drinkers before working in EMS, but what is endured by the average ambulance personnel will provide ample justification to find a way to take the edge off. It is a job and lifestyle that can get to you.

In My Ambulance Education I describe how a series of calls changed me gradually over time. The changes that occurred were incremental and pushed me towards a research career and away from working EMS in the streets. To be brutally frank, I did not like the person I was becoming while on the job. It was the beginnings of burnout that made me feel this way.

Over a series of calls told in the chapters of My Ambulance Education I ultimately burnt out. While this is a common occurrence in the EMS and paramedical fields it is a game changer for anyone trying to provide care to the urgent care patient. Although I have not been an EMT since circa 1993 my work and career has continued to try to help people.

My current patients are cared for by others, but I believe that I can help them by developing improved diagnostics and therapies. Now I work with other scientists as well as EMS personnel (who are in the trenches) all of us working to do research focused on benefit sick patients.

There are two types of people; Those who think transporting a bike on the front of a car is ok and those who do not. I was peripherally involved in a conversation between two people who had differing views on where to carry bikes when driving. The conversation started because local busses will take bike riders, with their bikes mounted on the front of the bus. Busses are too tall to put bicycles on the roof so the choice is front or back. The woman who argued against mounting them in front thought that they were likely to get damaged if the bus was in an accident. Her male friend thought that was a silly argument because the bus makes frequent stops and is more likely to be hit in the rear thus damaging bikes on the back. He was adamant that the bikes on the front of the bus were better for that reason as well as the security of the driver watching the bikes in front of him/her to prevent theft.

The female emphasized that it just “felt” wrong to have the bus carry the bikes on the front of the bus.

His response was sarcasm regarding her “feelings” for her position but providing no evidence.

I chose to not participate in the conversation but concluded two things: first, while both of these people worked in health care, they had never seen a pedestrian hit by a car carrying bicycles on the front of the car. Second the world is divided into people who have seen flesh and muscle shredded by a bicycle mounted on the front of a car and those who have not.

My opinion on the bike transport issue is that if the choice is front or back, back is the superior choice. Bike spokes do terrible things to a person hit by a car. If you are worried about your bicycle being damaged the top or inside of the vehicle is fine, but not the front. EMS people do not want to have extricate a person from parts of a bike that has slammed into them. The poor pedestrian who is hit does not want that either. Bicycles do not make good front bumpers under any circumstances.

We are in the midst of a lost generation of graduate students. Grad students take 4-7 years to get a degree, but with 4 years of flat funding and now challenge grants’ funding being 1 in 100 there is a perception of no future in science by those students. No one wants to spend their lives writing grants, but the goal of the modern scientists is not doing research but getting grants. This has caused numerous science students to choose other careers.
What makes this worse is I recently saw a news article in the New York Times with a line implying it is Christmas for scientists receiving challenge grants (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08satel.html). That concept could not be more wrong. There were over 20,000 grants submitted to the NIH for the stimulus package’s ARRA with less than 1% being funded. So it is Christmas for 1 in 100 scientists. That is not Christmas, it is a lottery.
How this affects students is they see the federal government being described as dumping many billions of dollars into science but all us scientists saying to students, “Sorry, I cannot take any students because I have no money.” I have had my funding cut from the NIH and grant acceptance rates go to ridiculously low levels. I need to submit 20 to 100 grants to get one funded but can only manage to submit 8 grants a year. I’m considered a prodigious grant writer but statistics still rule; there is simply not enough time to write more than about 8 grants per year. So that means it will take me 2.5 to 12.5 years to get a grant. My career has stopped being about doing science and is now a life of begging for money, with the education of future scientists sadly becoming a very low priority. Burgeoning scientists see this as students and realize there is no future for them.
In the 8 months since the release of the requests for grants in response to the stimulus package STUDENTS have seen their bosses focus entirely on the grants and not mentoring them. I went from weekly meetings to monthly meetings to passing emails late at night with the people in my lab.
There were a large number of students wanting to have their Ph.D. theses read and defended to move on with their career and instead of taking a few weeks to schedule; these meetings were moved back months. All this was because faculty like me were being encouraged by universities to grab at the billions from the federal government. I tried and did not receive any but the people who paid the price are the students. Eventually that price will be paid by humanity who will be the beneficiary of fewer educated scientists. The good students are leaving in droves for other things. We are experiencing a brain drain from this lost generation of scientists.

I had a flight from Stewart Airport; about 45 miles of New York City, to take me back to Cincinnati. Unfortunately that flight was cancelled and there were no others until the next day. Because of obligations I needed to get back home, so I re-booked another flight out of New York City’s LaGuardia Airport. Which meant I had four hours to get from Hopewell Junction New York to make the La Guardia flight. To tell the truth that is cutting it close.

I missed the first train to New York and got on the second commuter train headed to Grand Central Station scheduled to arrive about 1.5 hours before the flight. On the train I did some light reading but could not concentrate. In the seat in front of me I heard a couple who did not use their indoor voice on the train tell each other how hard high school was and that they were taking a year off to travel Europe and recover from their trials and tribulations of the previous 4 years. Thoughts of poor little rich boy and girl kept gnawing at me and while the conversation was benign in principle the repetitious use of the words, “like” and “ya’know” was exceedingly annoying.

I endured the train trip focusing on my work and wishful thinking about making the flight. The train arrived on time and, pulling my carryon bags, I hopped the nearest taxi. Having lived and worked in New York years ago, I knew making the airport in time would be tricky though doable at the height of rush-hour. I explained my situation to the taxi driver and we were off. The taxi driver made an illegal right turn before leaving the vicinity of the Train Terminal and was immediately stopped to be given a ticket. I politely and urgently tried to pay the driver so I could get another taxi because waiting for the cop to write the ticket would be too time consuming. He strongly insisted that I would have no problem making it to the airport in time. I reminded him that there is ticketing and security to get through and “in time” means I need to get on the plane. He however would not open the trunk to allow me to get my bags. As I’m getting more and more frustrated the cop returns and dismisses the driver with a warning and no ticket.

Without a word the taxi is off like a flash and I am in for a ride of my life. This driver, I guess to prove to me I would get to the airport “on time,” made multiple illegal turns, cut several people off and surpassed the speed limit at every conceivable opportunity. Multiple people beeped at us and made gestures like the one fingered salute as we sped by them. He kept telling me we were making great time and that there was nothing to worry about. The truth is I was not worried about making the flight. Despite having to hang on for dear life, and yes I was wearing a seatbelt, I love New York cabbies and knew we’d make it with time to spare. This episode did remind me that one should always try to avoid being on the receiving end of a cabby in a rush.

We did make it to the airport in time. I paid him cash and gave him a good tip. It was worth it and I made my flight.

I was attending a scientific conference recently which consisted of a series of short talks given by renowned scientists. The session was organized by a leading scientist in the field who invited the speakers and directed them to cover the key scientific subjects of the field to form a theme in the session. According to the agenda each speaker had 20 minutes for their talks with 15 minutes to present and 5 minutes to answer questions from the audience.

The session was scheduled to proceed like this: Talk number one; 10:00 to 10:20, Talk number two; 10:20 to 10:40 and so on.

It was to conclude at 12:00 for lunch.

What the session organizer neglected to account for was that he decided to give a 15 minute introductory talk at the beginning of the session. But, there was no time set aside for his introduction. This introduction is his right and quite common, but it is usually given a specific amount of time in the schedule.

Even if forgetting to take this into account during the session most people, in my opinion, should have realized this situation and would adjust the subsequent talks so that everyone got the right amount of time. Some might shorten question time of each of the talks by two or three minutes to make up for the session chair’s introduction and still end on time. I think the most common solution to this little situation is we all go late to lunch. No big deal and sessions running over time is extremely common.

On this particular occasion, the session chair gave his introduction and the first speaker started late. The result was a completely novel resolution to the late start caused by the Chair’s introduction. The session chair gave his introduction and then introduced the second speaker who started his 20 minute presentation at 10:13 AM. At 10:20 the session chair cuts off the presenter and allows no questions citing time constraints to make sure everyone else gets the right amount of time. The speaker apologizes for going so long and concludes very quickly and obviously embarrassed. He must have thought he talked 20 minutes as he scurried away. The audience did seem to think that was not quite right, but the next speaker was introduced and took up his 20 minute slot and the session ended on time with each subsequent speaker ending on time. I did over hear the first speaker musing that he felt he should have not been cut off after he realized what happened but the session was long over by then.

I’m sure that the session chair thought he only talked for a minute or two, but the assumption severely short changed the duration of the first speaker’s talk. The moral of the story is all session chairs need to be able to do math and calculate total times. Their introductory remarks may be a waste of time, but those minutes are real.