 Interview and words by Rinki Saha
Edited by Laurie Herviou and Lucie Yammine How is BCH spreading awareness in the US & India? Well, to be transparent with you here, in the US, we do not provide financial support. Rather I try to visit shelters to do screening and direct patients towards a care facility where they can get a free mammogram and treatments if needed. In terms of outreach programs in the US, our organization primarily focuses more on dense tissue complications in the detection of breast cancer, but also on the occurrence of breast cancer in men and cancer prevention. I am conducting global virtual seminars and ‘outreaches & awareness’ sessions in various communities in the US. Our Chapter Directors are getting involved in various community outreach. You can read about it here. We also recruit school student volunteers, conduct mentoring workshops, and make them BCH ambassadors. Those student volunteers organize outreach events and speak about the early occurrence of breast cancer and preventative measures in the outreach program within their network or neighborhood. Therefore, the volunteers not only deliver a service to their community but also can acquire leadership skills. I also conduct Young Scientist Cancer Meet and mentor students to help with their career and inculcate the art of scientific thinking & thought leadership. BCH Scientific writers is another program where I mentor the students to write research articles on different topics of breast cancer or other types of cancer, bringing into limelight the scenario not only in the developed but also in the developing countries. We are about to publish 18 articles on breast cancer by BCH scientific writers this year on our website. In 2018 & 2019 in India, I have conducted in person more than 140 outreaches covering cities, towns, villages, tea-gardens, hospitals, colleges, universities, research centers in urban and rural sectors. I am thankful to our collaborators who helped organizing these sessions. During the screening outreaches, I usually share my contacts with anyone with concerns and I guide all suspected cases towards the healthcare system, I provide scientific counseling, education, advocacy & treatment aid when needed, with proper followups. You can read more about it here. Besides, I am mentoring our BCH India ambassadors & we are building lifesaving Early Detection Cards for all types of cancer. We produced Breast Self-Exam Cards for both women & men in 20 different local languages, and the translation was done with the help of our worldwide BCH Ambassadors. Join us in two weeks to learn more about the long-term mission of Dr. Lopamudra Das Roy about this non-profit organization.
0 Comments
 Interview and words by Rinki Saha Edited by Laurie Herviou and Lucie Yammine ‘Success is a journey, not a destination’ – Meet Dr. Lopamudra Das Roy who started her career as a cancer research scientist, later diverted her path, and founded a non-profit organization called Breast Cancer Hub (BCH). She gave a motivating interview to INetNYC about her novel cause of breast cancer awareness. Her story is a perfect example of how the journey can change the destination and how you can leave everything behind to devote your life to cancer patients. Let’s hear about her incredibly fascinating journey. Lopamudra, can you tell us about your background? I was born in Assam, the North-Eastern part of India. Since my childhood, I was always inspired by my father who was an eminent pediatrician and I wanted to achieve a career in the field of healthcare. I earned my Ph.D. in Genetics from Assam University, India in 2007. Later I did a Postdoctoral Fellowship in cancer immunology & metastasis focusing on breast & pancreatic cancer at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine. After this training, I joined the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) as a Cancer Scientist and Research Professor. I was awarded grants as Principal Investigator from the Department of Defense cancer research program & National Cancer Institute to investigate targeted therapies and signaling pathways in metastatic breast and pancreatic cancer. I also received my MBA from Northwestern University – Kellogg School of Management. In brief, my scientific career was more than a decade in the making and I was later working as an adjunct Associate Professor at UNCC and Research Director at OncoTab, Inc; Cancer Diagnostics & Therapeutics, a UNCC spin-off. What motivated you to create this non-profit organization? Over the years I witnessed the real-time suffering of cancer patients and how breast cancer can ruin one family in just a few months if not detected early. I realized that there is a huge lack of awareness regarding breast cancer even here in the US and I already knew the situation in India where nobody wanted to talk about breast cancer and there was a huge taboo behind it. In my mind, I could already imagine long-term sustainable plans which can bridge this awareness gap and help millions of cancer patients lives and their family. During my time at Kellogg, I pitched my long-term dream project of how to merge breast cancer awareness in the developing and developed world. The idea was well appreciated and also, I got some kind of confirmation that this plan could materialize. Finally, in 2017 I decided to change the direction of my science career and invest all my effort and time to serve as a volunteer for the awareness program for breast cancer and formed a non-profit organization named Breast Cancer Hub. My decision to leave my research and start this foundation was because I knew from the beginning that it’s going to be a full-time involvement and I would never be able to devote my entire effort if I have continued in my scientist position. To start with, I did an online survey to see how awareness stands in both developed and developing countries. The survey was an eye-opener and indicated that irrespective of socio-economic conditions & education, women are reluctant to take breast health seriously. The survey also revealed that people are not at all aware of many crucial facts about breast cancer, such as
Worldwide lot of women are not going for breast cancer screening even after 40 years of age as there is a misconception that it can only be genetic, so they do not have to worry if it doesn’t run in their family. This survey helped me build the statistics of the current awareness status and provided me the rock-solid thought process to proceed to the next steps. The overarching mission of this organization is to organize health care programs, sustainable goals of helping cancer patients across developed and developing countries.  How can a mammogram miss the existence of Breast Cancer?
Because some of the women have very dense breast tissue made up of fibro glandular tissue, the current mammogram resolution makes it difficult to pick up the cancer cells. For those women, breast ultrasound and other additional tests can help detect cancer. Because of this misdiagnosis, many patients remain untreated. You can read more about this issue here. Would you please elaborate on this village adoption program? We adopted villages to penetrate deeper, going to each member, each household, maintaining database & follow-ups, for cancer screening, treatment, management, palliative care & epidemiological research study. We take accountability for each patient. During that process, if we find someone who is suffering, we immediately take the suspected cases to the local cancer hospital for further diagnosis, treatment, and provide end to end support. We focus on breast, oral (anti-tobacco campaign), cervical as well as other types of cancers. We provide them with all the economic and mental support. You can read more about village adoption here. I am also very glad to say that many organizations in India, Indonesia, and Africa are now reaching out to us for collaboration or guidance to replicate this village adoption model for their community work. Join Us in two weeks to hear more from Dr. Lopamudra Das Roy about how BCH organizes its awareness program across the world. H H Words by Matteo Tardelli Edited by Laurie Herviou & Ipshita Zutshi Let’s face it! As Scientists in academia and PhD holders we are often very bad at marketing ourselves with prospective bosses or recruiters. Here’s where Linkedin comes in handy. LinkedIn is generally a medium rarely utilized by PhDs, who prefer instead to create a ResearchGate profile. However, although the latter is useful to get stats, readers and citations on your work, it does not help much if you are seeking a new employment.  Credits @viennascience Do you not have LinkedIn yet? Here are some tips on how to build a successful LinkedIn profile for Scientists and hopefully to get recruiters to find you:
I know this takes time and effort, but you’ll notice the difference in the first weeks if done right as people tend to interact with you more and more. My profile is far from being great, I must say, but by listening to experts, attending seminars and career fairs (often organized by INet-NYC) - you can slowly get an idea on how to work best with it. Here are some additional resources you might find useful. Words by Ipshita Zutshi Edited by Laurie Herviou & Conchi Izquierdo Climate change, deadly pandemics and diseases - the argument is often made that the world now, more than ever, is in dire need of scientifically-driven policy making strategies. While true, we would argue that the world has always needed science diplomacy, and moreover, there have always been highly talented professionals navigating these uncharted waters of what we now call science diplomacy. With an increasing push to standardize this profession to make it a more linear path, INet NYC organized a career development panel discussion on Monday, May 18th, 2020, called “Science Diplomacy: how one can foster the other?”.  The event was spearheaded by INet NYC board member Laurie Herviou, a postdoctoral researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and brilliantly moderated by Alessandro Allegra. The invited panelists included Dr Alicia Pérez-Porro, Dr Lorenzo Melchor, Dr Melania Guerra, Dr Jean-Christophe Mauduit, Dr Marga Gual Soler, and Dr Jessica Tome Garcia (Detailed bios for each of the panelists are provided at the bottom of this article). The outcome of their efforts is a goldmine of information for opportunities to transition to a career in science diplomacy. We hope that you can walk away (or rather, scroll away) having learnt a little more about this truly exciting profession. You can also watch the full video of the discussion here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux25ANzPm1c.  We used the transcript of the panel discussion to generate a word cloud of the most commonly used terms during the discussion (using www.wordclouds.com). Check out the buzzwords in this field!
So what is science diplomacy? As Alessandro perfectly summarized, “science diplomacy is an umbrella-term that means different things to different people”. He explained that those pursuing science diplomacy often are “hybrid creatures'' of sorts, developing multiple skills and juggling various responsibilities. They hail from various backgrounds, often starting off as scientists, diplomats or social scientists, and perhaps because of this diversity, the very definition of science diplomacy is quite amorphous. Broadly however, all our panelists defined science diplomacy as the interactive medium by which academia, governments, international institutions, private companies, NGOs and regional organizations all connect using science as the common language. As for why the world needs science diplomacy, we highly resonate with the opinion voiced by Jessica, “I don't understand global development without science. I don't understand sustainable development without science. And I don't understand governments without scientists in their parliaments.” What motivated you to pursue science diplomacy? The most consistent drive towards a career in science diplomacy was the general feeling of being “trapped in academia”. For almost all the panelists, there came a turning point in their career, either at the end of their PhDs, or during their post-doc, where they began to question the impact of the work they do - “I felt I was staring into the wall of a cave without being totally aware of how vast the world is”, or “I didn’t want to spend my time in front of a microscope in a dark room alone”, were some phrases heard. Some of the panelists such as Alicia and Melanie described their turning points as “Aha!” moments where certain experiences made everything click for them (Admittedly, their jaw-dropping experiences in Antarctica or in the Bering Strait certainly sounded Aha-worthy). Other panelists such as JC and Lorenzo described this process as a more gradual process of self-discovery, from a course taken, or exposure through volunteering at an organization, that slowly shaped their path. How did you start your career in science diplomacy? Given how diverse and multi-faceted the field of science diplomacy is, it is perhaps unsurprising that the paths taken by our panelists were equally varied. For most of our panelists, fellowships (most of them UN-based fellowships), Royal Societies, workshops and field trips acted as the first steps to transitioning to a career in science diplomacy (For a comprehensive list of these fellowships, scroll down to the ‘useful links and resources section’). Almost all panelists also highlighted the role of mentors in this process, where often finding the right mentor is the first step towards learning how to make this transition. A crucial point raised by Alessandro, JC and Marga, is that this process is not necessarily always linear. It sometimes becomes necessary to take a few steps back, to pursue a masters degree, or an unpaid internship, after already having received a PhD. In fact almost all our panelists went on to complete their master’s degrees in policy after their PhDs, because those programs would give them the necessary visibility and knowledge of the international framework. All the panelists stressed however, that these temporary pauses should not be looked at as setbacks, and that these courses are well worth the extra time. Furthermore, there are now greater efforts to make this career path more linear with more streamlined courses and trajectories available. Given the variety of trajectories one can take to transition, we understand that decision for the ‘right’ path can seem quite overwhelming. Here, we hope that JC’s advice may provide some respite, “It is important to remember that there is no one skill, or one clear educational pathway or trajectory to follow. The field is constantly being defined, and the way to teach knowledge and skills will also continue to be shaped and refined in the coming years.” What skills help for a successful career in science diplomacy? Perhaps the most common advice given by our panelists was to cultivate the ability to communicate. As Melanie rightly said, “If you have the ability of simplifying the science, dealing with the uncertainty around predictions, and maneuvering them into something that can actually lead to action for the policymakers, that is one of the biggest strengths that you can have.” This advice was backed up by Lorenzo who also recommended that one must have, “Entrepreneurship creativity and the ability to multitask because you’ll have to develop quite a lot of projects at once”. Our panelists also recommended developing “soft-skills”. As Jessica mentioned, “It is very important to never underestimate a person and instead try to understand what their culture and passion is and always have an open mind.” Similar opinions were voiced by Marga who told us, “In this field, it is not only important what you know, but also how you say it and whether you respect protocol and know that there’s an order and hierarchy that must be followed.” Resilience was another skill that our panelists repeatedly recommended. As Jessica described, “There are many many skills needed, some of which we have already gained as a scientist because we think and we learn how to be resilient.” This rang soundly with Alicia’s advice - “It is very useful to be able to leave your comfort zone and feel comfortable being uncomfortable”, Alicia also mentioned that her ability to connect things that people don't see the connection between - a scientific paper, an international policy, a local NGO, and to find ways to bring these seemingly different things together has paid off really well in this profession. What if I’m not ready to transition to a career in science diplomacy? We understand that many of our readers care deeply about science diplomacy, and want to look for ways to contribute without completely switching career paths at this moment. We’d like to highlight a key point made by Lorenzo, “You can keep doing research but with a different mindset that your research needs to have some kind of impact at the policy or diplomacy level. To do that you engage in specific meetings, have different international conferences, or different policy gatherings to provide your scientific expertise so that science has an impact in policy and diplomacy.” Several organizations such as the Royal Society, Sense about Science, Campaign for Science and Engineering, and professional societies or networks (Psst...INet-NYC is looking for volunteers) are ideal platforms to engage with science diplomacy as an active researcher. Needless to say, keep engaging with us and our panelists on Twitter, Instagram and Linkedin, and keep the conversation going! We would like to end with the inspiring advice given by Alicia, “when in doubt, just keep swimming”. It may seem like a daunting task but if you stay focused and take things one step at a time, you are sure to achieve success and find a way to navigate these waters. Useful links and resources: Words by Ipshita Zutshi
Edited by Jessica Sharrock Burnout, stress, hopelessness…we in academia are only too familiar with these terms. How many times have we had a paper rejected, had a PI make unreasonable productivity demands, had to deal with the incessant guilt of taking time away from the bench? Mental health issues are pervasive and deeply entrenched across all fields of academia, but sadly often also go ignored. On September 24th, 2019, INet NYC organized an open mic event on mental health that invited anonymous stories from scientists and researchers across the country, which were then narrated to the audience. Several members of the audience also shed their inhibitions and shared their own stories of dealing with the pressures of academia. By narrating stories of various kinds, ranging from annoying co-workers, to frustrating experiments, to serious cases of harassment, our goal was three-fold – first, to provide a healthy environment where one can gain some respite by sharing stories that have probably been festering for a while. Second, to demonstrate to all those suffering from mental health issues out there, that YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Lastly, by narrating a large variety of stories, we hoped to gain a better idea of the breadth and range of mental health issues that plague us in academia. This event was awarded the 2019 Elsevier National Postdoc Appreciation Week Best New Event award and we would like to thank the NPA for recognizing the importance of addressing mental health concerns. The event brought to light several reasons why mental health issues in academia are so widespread. Firstly, in academia, the lines between career and personal life become increasingly blurred. In our quest for success, we discourage time for hobbies, interests, families, and foster a culture of stiff competition where an inability to enjoy spending 12 hours cooped up in front of a microscope reflects too little “passion” for science. Unfortunately, so many of us slip between the cracks because of this culture, where we’re stuck feeling like misfits, or ‘imposters’, or simply not having what it takes. Another recurrent theme across most stories was that academia is a relatively solitary journey. Alone you trudge, dealing with failures on almost a daily basis – failed experiments, grant rejections, rejected papers. Toxic lab environments, competition between lab members, and unreasonable PIs were one of the primary sources of stress amongst our story contributors. Lastly, it became amply clear that most international researchers also have the added stressors of immigration. Most visas preclude international researchers from taking up jobs outside of academia, forcing them to be stuck, miserable, in their current labs, or risk having to go back to their home countries. Bleak as all this it may sound, the event also discussed how the younger generation of researchers are now rejecting the stigmas and toxic expectations of academia. There are several very loud voices championing for better mental health in academia, and it was widely agreed that sharing our stories is a first step to making this career path a more inclusive and welcoming place. Given the current coronavirus crisis, we acknowledge that mental health issues have likely been exacerbated for most of us. The stress of being away from experiments for an unknown period of time, being locked into our shoebox-sized NYC apartments, pressures from PIs to use this time “productively”, job and immigration insecurities, and a constant fear for our loved ones in faraway cities or countries – trust us, we know exactly how you feel! But maybe this is good time to take a break, spend time with a loved one, catch up on healthy eating, take up a new hobby. The experiments will still be waiting for you once this is all over, so for now, just make sure you are taking care of yourself. If you are struggling with mental health issues, please do reach out to counselors, friends and family. If you or someone you know needs immediate help, please contact the toll-free, 24-hour hotline of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255. Hopefully, with a little bit of help and support, we can work towards making academia a much more welcoming and positive career path than the one we have experienced till now. Interview and Words by Jenny Schneider.
Edited by Jessica Sharrock. A conversation with Dr. Sumru Bayin, Senior Postdoctoral Fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York. See parts one, two and three here. PART 4: TIPS & ADVICE JS: Any advice for international scholars on applying for funding? SB: The website GrantScoop is a great search engine for funding opportunities. In addition, talk to your PI about it and contact your institute’s grants office (most big institutes have them). They can help you get more information that is specific to your field of research and nationality. In terms of timeline, it is advisable to start looking for grants as early as possible because most of the grants have a specific window of eligibility (e.g. you can apply within 1-2 years of your PhD defense date). I think applying for grants is a great exercise even if you don’t need the extra funding or if you don’t get it at the end. It is beneficial for your CV, especially if you want to stay in academia, and it allows you to understand your own project from the start. JS: Overall through your scientific experience, were there moments where you thought to yourself “I wish I knew this before”? SB: I definitely wish I knew I had to contact PIs about rotations before my first day at the PhD program. I also wish I was more aware of the politics and competitiveness of science when I started my PhD. It can be brutal and unfair and it would of help to be ready to face it. Now I am used to it but during the first stages of my PhD I took it very personally, to the point where I thought I didn’t want to be in science anymore. If I had been prepared, I could have been more pragmatic and cared less about adverse reactions to my science. JS: Looking back on your science path, would you do anything differently? SB: I would say “no” to science more often. I still sometimes make the mistake of taking on too much. Overworking becomes a habit and if you don’t learn to make time for yourself from the start it is very hard to change later. I am a bit of a workaholic and I think that now it’s too late for me to change my habits. I wish I had set a better work-life boundary and remembered that science can wait sometimes! JS: What is one piece of advice you would give someone starting their PhD or postdoc? SB: Be realistic about your expectations, make sure that you really love science and that you are willing to spend the overtime on it. Definitely don’t go into grad school or a postdoc as a default; it’s the worst mistake. I am not saying you won’t be successful, you just might be miserable. Get into it because you want to do it, not because you don’t know what to do next. Also, if somewhere along the way you realize that it is not for you, it’s okay to get out and reconfigure your career path. In short, know yourself and know your limits. JS: Moving from turkey to the US; what was the best, worst, and weirdest experience you have had? SB: The best part was definitely New York City. Maybe I watched too much TV but NYC felt like home even when I first moved here. It felt so familiar, like I’d lived here all my life. It is multicultural and much more influenced by other world regions. As a foreigner, I think New York is very welcoming because of its diversity, no one treats you differently because everyone is a foreigner here. It is also one of a few select places in the world where you don’t have to define who you are. The hardest part, scientifically, was dealing with the first round of disappointments from your project not working as expected in the lab. I also had to deal with some fallout from Hurricane Sandy, I think from my 8 years in the US; it was one of the hardest, most emotional experiences that I had to deal with. NYU got hit very hard and that put our lives on hold for a very long time. In retrospect, this experience strengthened relationships with my peers and eventually we bounced back. The weirdest parts are the doors and locks opening the opposite way, and having to walk everywhere instead of driving. On a more serious note, seeing the amount of homeless people in NYC was difficult for me. I think in general, coming to a new country without knowing anyone is challenging. We put up brave faces but it can be hard at times. It helped that I acquired an extremely supportive group of friends during my PhD at NYU. We would like to thanks Dr. Bayin for taking the time to INet NYC about her life in the science world. Interview and Words by Jenny Schneider.
Edited by Jessica Sharrock A conversation with Dr. Sumru Bayin, Senior Postdoctoral Fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York. See part one and part two here. PART 3: POSTDOC LIFE JS: Did you consider doing a postdoc outside of the US? SB: I did and I decided against it. People might disagree, but my personal perception is that once you get out of the US-science-niche it is very hard to get back in. A postdoc is the time to set up your network and create connections, whatever your future career may be. Since I wasn’t sure if I wanted to stay in the US long-term, I decided a postdoc in the US would keep the doors open. JS: Did you consider doing a postdoc outside of academia? SB: I did, though I considered it a bit too late. Industry postdoc applications usually have specific timelines (unlike academia). If I could do something differently, I would definitely look more thoroughly into industry postdocs. There are great programs (e.g. Novartis, Regeneron, and Genentech) in industry labs run by very successful PIs. Talk to people and ask questions about the lab publication record and get a feel regarding the level of autonomy you may have, if that is something that is important to you. JS: How did you go about the process of looking for a postdoc? When did you start and what were your first steps? SB: I started looking about a year before my graduation. Since positions at high profile labs get filled fast, it is good to apply about a year in advance, or at least send “feelers” out to the PI at that point. I started searching for labs by reading papers and marking names of PIs whose research I was interested in, I also consulted my PhD committee members about my interests and asked their advice. I looked for open postdoc positions through Nature Jobs and I did get a few interviews from there, but the most successful applications came from personal e-mails I sent without knowing if they had a vacancy or not. I think the e-mail you send to the PI makes a huge difference. Keep it concise and make it personal, don’t copy-paste a template. I stated why I was interested specifically in their lab as well as my general scientific interests. I attached my CV, references, and a short cover letter detailing my previous experience. I would suggest going to interviews even if it is not in your dream lab or subject, you never know what the lab really does and what the future projects will be until you talk to the PI. JS: What are the most important questions to ask during the interview? SB: We tend to focus on the fact that we are being interviewed by the PI and the lab, but it is also important to remember that a big part of the process is you interviewing them. Consider your future goals and ask how supportive your mentor will be with your career aspirations. For me, it was important to ask if the PI assigns more than one person on a project as a competitive move- it’s a hard question to ask but it was a deal breaker for me. The second question I asked was can I take my project with me when I leave to start my own lab. This conversation needs to be established from day one if opening your own lab is in your thoughts. JS: How did you pick your postdoc lab? SB: More than my interest in the research subject, I looked into what I can learn from the lab, technique- and methodology-wise. I wanted to do something different to my PhD to develop new skills and get out of my comfort zone. JS: Did you encounter any bureaucratic challenges in your transition from your PhD to your Postdoc institute? SB: If you do your PhD in the United States, this transition is very structured and the school will usually guide you through your transition from an F1 visa to an OPT visa. However, you should definitely be aware of the process and monitor it to make sure everything is being done according to plan. JS: In your opinion, what is the biggest difference between being a grad student and being a postdoc? SB: The scale of responsibility! In grad school your mistakes are allowed. The expectations are high but when you do well the level of praise is commensurate. As a postdoc, even if you accomplish something very challenging it is usually met with… “Yeah, it’s your job”. You are expected to take charge which is not a bad thing, it is just an adjustment. The relationship between you and your PI is extremely important (even more so than during your PhD). The success of your postdoc can definitely rely on the strength of your relationship with your PI because you don’t have the backing of grad school and your committee anymore. I am lucky that I have a great relationship with my PI but I can see with others how easily you can get lost in your postdoc without the proper support. On that note, when you apply for postdocs try to pick institutions that have a strong postdoctoral associations and administrative support for postdocs. Though in most cases things work out well, it is good to have backup and people to turn to if things get rough. Both my PhD and postdoc institutes (NYU and Memorial Sloan Kettering respectively) have a strong institutional support system for postdocs. JS: Did you have any expectations from a postdoc and were they met? SB: I had fairly realistic expectations, so the day-to-day life in the lab was what I expected. I also came from a lab where I was very independent and I had a lot of responsibility; in a way I was trained well for the postdoc. That said, I left my PhD program knowing everything there was to know about my work and my lab, and I entered my postdoc lab not knowing anything. Despite my independence and training, it caught me off guard but you get over it very quickly; it is part of the learning curve in any new job. Also, I did not expect that I would be poorer than I was in grad school (says jokingly). You definitely don’t starve and your overall quality of life is higher, but your net salary after taxes, rent, and bills is slightly lower. This is also partially because we live in NYC where everything is more expensive. Lastly, one of the major adjustments for me was the social aspect. In grad school, you have classes and plenty of socializing opportunities within reach. As a postdoc, you go straight to the lab in a completely new institute where in most cases you know no one. I found it a bit difficult to make friends and build a community like the one I had at NYU during my PhD. MSK specifically has a slightly more “distant” feel to it since it is not a university environment. If you are the type of person who feeds off of other people’s energy, you should consider the overall dynamics and culture of the institute when deciding to join a lab. JS: If you sum up your postdoc experience so far, what is the best and worst part about it? SB: The best part is the science; I love what I do. My mentor knows my career goals and she is doing her best to prepare me for the next steps in my career. We have mentoring discussions that are preparing me and I appreciate that. The worst part is the overall struggle of figuring out what I want to do next. Up until now it was fairly set, finish a PhD and start a postdoc. Once you get to the postdoc part questions start arising: Academia or not academia? If academia, what am I going to work on in my own lab? How am I going to handle it all? Even knowing I had years to think about it during my postdoc, I had those thoughts and questions about my next steps from day one; it is definitely a stress I put on myself. Join us next week for Part 4, when Dr. Bayin will give us some tips and advice about being a graduate student and postdoc in the US. Interview and Words by Jenny Schneider.
Edited by Jessica Sharrock. A conversation with Dr. Sumru Bayin, Senior Postdoctoral Fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York. See part one here. PART 2: PhD LIFE JS: You got into a PhD program on your second attempt. What did you do differently the second time around that you think influenced the outcome of your applications? SB: A few things. First, I got better, more personal, recommendation letters the second time around. It is not enough to have a generic letter that says, “She was top of her class”. Second, I worked more on my personal statement. Your statement should show why you are interested in that specific institute, program, or lab. It is important to research the institute you are applying to and get as much information as you can through their website and by talking to people. Not getting into a program does not mean you are not good. There are bureaucratic aspects that you may not be aware of that will influence the school’s decision, like quotas for international students, or budget restrictions for flying you in for an interview. Try to find out how many international students there are in the program or if the institute is familiar with students from your country. Overall, putting in the time to do research about the students and the faculty, and understanding the program and the University you are applying to can increase your chances of getting into your desired PhD program. Also, when I applied I didn’t contact individual Principal Investigators (PIs) but in retrospect I should have. International students are often afraid of being too familiar with a PI and coming off as disturbing. But the worst that can happen is that you will not get a response. Get in touch with PIs to express your interest in their work, just make sure to do this in advance; a few months ahead of the application deadline would be best. Overall, at PhD level everybody is equally smart, so you need to find a way to differentiate yourself and show that you are adaptable and resilient. My summer research program in the UK definitely helped showcase my experience and get good recommendation letters. JS: How did you pick your PhD institute and lab? SB: It was partially luck for me. I had trouble establishing my first rotation because I was not aware that I had to start contacting PIs about rotations before I started the program. That is part of the challenge as an international student; you can be out of the loop. By the time I started reaching out to potential rotation labs all the rotation spots were taken. Luckily, the dean of our school told me about a new PI that just opened a lab the month before. I contacted the PI and it was a great fit. I ended up doing my first rotation there and eventually joined the lab full time. JS: Did you continue your rotation project once you joined the lab? SB: No. I loved both my rotation and thesis projects but they were not the same. That is one of the reasons I think that the project is not the most important part when picking a lab, as it often changes. It is important to talk to your PI about your interests and pick a lab where you will have a few projects to choose from. Most of the times things don’t work out like you thought and it is good to have back-up projects. JS: What were the most memorable moments of your PhD experience? SB: I had a great mentor that let me find my identity as a scientist and this led to an overall great PhD experience (although like most people, I had days where I hated everything and wanted to quit). In terms of specific moments, I remember my qualification exam as the most challenging thing I did throughout my PhD; I left the exam thinking I knew nothing. On the flip side, I think my thesis defense was the highlight of my PhD. Towards the end of your PhD, you reach the top of your learning curve and you accumulate a lot of data. Then at your defense, no one knows your project better than you and that is your moment to shine and be proud of what you have accomplished. Another big moment is getting your first first-author publication; it is a great feeling of affirmation. JS: When did you know that you wanted to continue to a postdoc? SB: I knew early on in my PhD that I wanted to do a postdoc because I want to stay in academia (for now, let’s see how it goes). Although, I think I would do a postdoc even if I didn’t want to stay in academia because it is an opportunity to understand what you want and it gives you time to consider your next steps. I did consider skipping the postdoc entirely and going directly to a junior investigator program where you are supervised, but you have your own grants and freedom to direct your research. Eventually I decided against it because I didn’t feel ready to be that independent; I wanted time to learn and understand more about my own interests for my future lab. Join us for Part 3, when Dr. Bayin will talk about how she went about landing her postdoc, how she chose the lab and her experiences so far. Interview and Words by Jenny Schneider.
Edited by Jessica Sharrock. INet NYC sat down with Dr. Sumru Bayin, Senior Postdoctoral Fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York. In this four-part interview, Dr. Bayin offers great insight and advice to early career scientists by talking about her personal scientific journey through Turkey, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Dr. Bayin completed her Bachelors and Masters degrees at Bilkent University, one of Turkey’s leading institutes. She went on to get her PhD at New York University (NYU) and is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow at MSKCC. PART 1: INTRODUCTION JS: How did you decide to become a scientist? SB: As a kid, I was one of those “freaks” who played with earth worms, dissected flies, and knew at the age of 12 what they wanted to do. I come from a family of STEM scientists, and although I was never forcibly pushed into that professional direction, it probably influenced my inclination towards science. In middle school, we had to interview someone who was pursuing our “dream job” and I picked a PhD student studying molecular biology and got to visit their lab. That experience was a crucial point in my decision to become a scientist and helped set my mind in that direction. JS: How did you pick your scientific field? SB: I always found stem cells and their adaptability fascinating. Up until now I worked with liver stem cells, brain tumor stem cells, and now stem cells in the context of brain development. Honestly, I never thought I would work on the brain but I found it very attractive because there is so little known about it; it was the challenge that drew me to the field. In general, when picking a field, I would say follow your gut and be aware that your interests may change over time. Follow a general interest and do not be too consumed with picking a specific subfield. At the start of my career, I was interested in Cancer Biology because of family history, but after finishing my PhD in the cancer field I realized I didn’t know anything about the function of healthy cells, so I moved into developmental biology research. Projects change all the time, so make sure you like the general theme and techniques. In a nutshell, listen to the science and see where it takes you. Try to see the big picture and don’t be too consumed with the little details although it is easier said than done. JS: Can you tell me more about the time you spent doing research in the UK as an undergraduate student? SB: The internship program I joined in the UK was similar to the Summer Undergraduate Research Programs (SURP) here in the US. While I was an undergrad in Turkey, I sent bulk applications to try and get into a program abroad. My application was eventually picked up by a lab that was familiar with the reputation of Bilkent University (they had a PhD student from my University in the lab, which I was not aware of when I sent the application). It can be challenging to prove your academic merit when coming from countries like Turkey. Despite having world-class institutes with outstanding academic programs, the perception in the world can be skewed due to lack of familiarity. It helps to have someone to vouch for you and your home institution. That said, the challenge is mostly getting noticed during the application process. Once you are in the program no one will question your abilities and professionalism. JS: Why did you decide to apply for a PhD program in the US? SB: I was debating the US vs. Europe (EU) but I felt that the US had better-structured PhD training programs. Unlike most programs outside the US, here you get to do rotations and try different labs before you commit to one, giving you time to explore your options and interests more. Also, the education programs in Turkey are more similar to the American system than the EU system and this familiarity influenced my decision. JS: Why not in Turkey? SB: Despite the top-notch research going on in Turkey, it’s hard to compete with international level science simply because of logistics and geographic location, like the amount of time it takes to get an antibody shipped. I felt that if I decide to go back to Turkey one day, going back with a proven scientific record would make it easier to navigate the scientific community and have more of an influence than if I would try to build my career there from the ground up. Join us next week for Part 2, when Dr. Bayin will talk about her PhD application process and life as a PhD student. Words by Nicole Parada
Edited by Jessica Sharrock There is nothing like being in New York during the holiday season. Here are five things to do in the city with you family and friends to get into the holiday spirit…
Happy Holidays from all at INet-NYC! |
Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed