By John Chodacki

“The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!”
-Dr. Strangelove

In science, as in Doomsday Machines, the important thing is the communication. Research, unless it is disseminated, is no different from study. It is one thing to define a good problem and develop what you think is a productive answer. But if you don’t tell others what you did and why you did it, you may as well have not bothered. Dissemination, so that others can test and respond to your work, is what makes research research.

These are truisms, of course. But if you look at how science communication is actually taught, you might wonder. It takes years of schooling to become a scientist or scholar. This schooling teaches you the basic techniques and tenets of your field. You learn how to conduct research in a responsible fashion. Your instructors test your knowledge of the core literature and ideas. Once you work in the field, you are expected to stay on top of the most recent trends and developments.

How you communicate this research, however, is something that in many fields you are expected to pick up on your own. You learn by working with your supervisors on joint papers. In others, there may be a professionalisation course (usually taught by one of the research faculty, rather than a specialist in the latest trends in Scholarly Communication) or your supervisor might suggest a journal for you to try.

In contrast to almost everything else about your training, however, the guidance you receive in Scholarly Communication is almost always backwards looking and conservative–you learn by watching and emulating the practices of the generation before you, adapting their methods and adopting their sense of what is most efficient or productive.

In this last thirty years, this traditional, apprentice-style method of learning about Scholarly Communication has become increasingly untenable. The advent of the World Wide Web and (in High- and Mid-Income Economies, at least) ubiquitous or near ubiquitous computing is changing nearly every aspect of how and what we can communicate as researchers. An industry that changed only incrementally in the course of the previous century is now full of new and potentially disruptive initiatives, economic models, standards, and start-ups–many developed and led by recent graduates and students. And of course this makes sense: students are entering a world their supervisors were not trained for; it is not surprising that they are the ones to see the disruptive potential inherent in these new technologies, standards, and models.

The Force 11 Scholarly Communication Summer Institute (FSCI) has been developed to address this gap in how we learn the crucial art of Scholarly Communication. FSCI is modelled on the very successful Digital Humanities Summer Institute (the Digital Humanities are another domain in which networked computing has disrupted the field faster than traditional training can accommodate). In the last 16 years, DHSI has trained thousands of humanities researchers in a very supportive atmosphere in how they can make the most of the latest computation and communication techniques to improve their traditional research practice. FSCI brings the same approach to the latest developments in Scholarly Communication more generally: bring together the leaders in the field and those who want to improve their daily practice; allow the community to set the topics that are taught; emphasise hands on work whenever possible.

The inaugural Institute will take place July 31-August 4 on the campus of the University of California, San Diego. The Institute is built around six week long morning courses that help researchers orient themselves in the latest developments in contemporary Scholarly Communication, data-rich research, and globalisation (here’s the course list).

These morning courses are complemented by 6 hour afternoon courses on most specialised topics, from “Open Humanities” and “Altmetrics” to Data and Software Citation. The courses are taught by leading practitioners and researchers in Scholarly Communication and are based, in many cases, on courses these instructors have given successfully at smaller institutes and workshops. FSCI, however, represents the first attempt to bring these many different topics and experts together in a single location for a single intense week.

For the student, the goal is improving your research dissemination practice. In previous generations, change in how you were expected to communicate research happened quite slowly. It was enough to see what others did and emulate that. Today, how you can communicate science is changing almost as fast as the science you communicate. FSCI provides a structured, low-cost, and friendly way of learning about the latest developments from the experts who are leading the change.

So when you get back to your lab, you can get on with letting others know about your research in the most efficient and effective way possible.

Learn more about the FORCE11 Scholarly Communications Institute at https://www.force11.org/fsci.

Featured Image: Jason-3 Satellite Rendering. Photo credit: CNES. No copyright restrictions, public domain.

John Chodacki is Director of the University of California Curation Center (UC3) at California Digital Library (CDL). As Director of UC3, John works across the UC campuses and the broader community to ensure that CDL’s digital curation services meet the emerging needs of the scholarly community, including digital preservation, data management, and reuse.

What college advice can early career researchers (ECRs) give incoming undergraduate students? For most high school students, summertime means temporary jobs, college visits, and standardized tests. For ECRs, visiting family and friends that are considering college may ask you — a veteran of the collegiate experience — many questions about college decision-making. Considering the current political and economic turbulence, how can an ECR give college advice to high school students looking to major in other areas?

Focus on certainties

The expectation here might be to start with a discussion of strengths and weaknesses or interests of the student. Instead, let’s take a step back. Almost every student has certain needs: an education and a career trajectory that will provide housing, healthcare, and food. Unless they are independently wealthy, the student needs a plan to provide for themselves. Considering the uncertainty in many job markets today, try to focus on skill development.

There are many transferable skills that are taught in college, such as public speaking, statistics and writing. By emphasizing the importance of skill development, you can confer the value of lifelong learning, and building upon and adapting your knowledge.

While it’s difficult to forecast the job market in the next four to five years there are many stable sectors (such as accounting, nursing, engineering) and technical skills (i.e. administration, business/entrepreurship and computer programming) that are always fundamental to many workplaces and therefore valued. Try working with the student to find a commonality between their diverse interests and guide them to develop skills catered to that interest.

Help define priorities

When choosing a college or a career path, certain priorities need to be considered. Is the college in a good location? Is it important to be close to family, friends, or other support networks? Would it be difficult for the student to start fresh in a new city, region, or country? The ability to retain or develop support structures may make a difference in academic standing or the overall college experience. While the quality of the academic program is important, it is important to remember the student is choosing where to start their next chapter. The setting (urban, suburban, rural), region, and the campus lifestyle will affect many aspects of the student’s daily life.

Does a certain university provide the desired campus life or overall “experience?” Here are some key questions the student should ask a campus representative:

• Is the university very social or service-oriented?
• Are you an athelete or a fan of college athletics?
  
• Some universities may be known for residential students going home on weekends — is this a “suitcase campus” or “commuter campus”?
• Does the institution offer research opportunities for undergraduates?
• What sort of professional development services are available to students?

Reflecting on the overall experience before committing to four years at a certain university is important to helping the student to make informed decisions.

Always aim for the best financial choices

The political climate is tense and federal student loan policies in the United States are up in the air. The discussion around college financing, federal funding, and private student loans are creating more uncertainty around the financial burdens associated with a college education.

It is clear that college is an investment of both time and money, and it’s critical that this investment pay off in the long run. I suggest working with the student to think about their vision for the ideal outcome, post-college. Some things to think about:

• What is the overall cost of attending this college? Go beyond tuition to look at the average cost of renting an apartment in the area.
• Is living on campus required or even financially tenable? What is more affordable, on or off campus living? How will this impact future friendships or quality of life?
  
• How much would a first job need to pay to begin paying off any loans? Time to do the math.
• Can you take prerequisite courses at a more affordable institution? Sometimes, completing prereqs at a community college is less expensive and a simple transfer.

For most students, minimizing any student debt is a priority. Speak to students from your personal experience about important topics such as course loads, the value of financial aid, and ongoing burden of student loans to help students make an informed decision on their educational investment. These decisions will affect their financial welfare for years to come.

Suggested Listening: Death, Sex and Money produced a podcast series where individuals discuss the crippling burden of student debt. While not uplifting, it is important listening for incoming students.

Explore career path(s) early

Encourage the student to build connections and explore career options early on in the process. Work with the student to connect with professionals on social media and nudge them to read or write blog posts and join job discussion boards, or reddit boards related to their desired career path or applying to college.

Motivate the student to be a go-getter, and create their own opportunities by connecting with people who have the career and lifestyle the student envisions for themselves in the future.

Great resources for this are social mediums like reddit, Twitter, and LinkedIn. TIP: Check your username and make sure it’s professional.

Take the next step and think about your personal contacts. Do you know someone in their field of interest? If you are willing, connect the student with your friend or colleague and help the student set up an informational interview. Leveraging a personal connection can often make all difference when launching a career.

There are more publicly available career resources and pathways available today than in the past. By focusing on the guaranteed aspects of college, skill development, and networking offer students a fresh perspective on the college experience, particularly during turbulent political and economic times.

Sharing insights from your personal experience as an ECR will start a productive discussion about attaining higher education for young students interested in any discipline.

Do you have some good advice to share? Comment below!

Featured Photo: Rochelle Nicole, Univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Photo freely available and licensed under Creative Commons Zero.

References

Frizell, S. 2014. Student loans are ruining your life. Now they’re ruining the economy, too. TIME. http://time.com/10577/student-loans-are-ruining-your-life-now-theyre-ruining-the-economy-too/. Accessed June 2, 2017.

Tretina, K. 2017. 6 vital things parents need to know about student loans. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/05/26/6-vital-things-parents-need-know-student-loans/102026276/. Accessed June 2, 2017.

Yu, R. 2017. Student loan program faces uncertain future amid sweeping proposals. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/26/student-loan-program-uncertain-future/102193976/. Accessed June 2, 2017.

With all eyes on the current budget proceedings in Washington, D.C, scientists fear an uncertain funding landscape in the United States. Further funding cuts for institutional overhead costs, which fund resources like utility and maintenance expenses, are at the forefront of ongoing political debate. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has already announced that budget cuts, if enforced, would halt promising biomedical innovations currently in development.

While there have been some reports highlighting individual institutions abusing indirect cost funding, the proposed $7.2 billion cuts to the NIH would spill directly into research grant funding. This funding scarcity is especially troubling for young scientists.

Young Scientists See Trouble Ahead

Funding levels for U.S. biomedical research shrunk by 22% from 2003 to 2015 due to sequestration and losses to inflation. Particularly for young scientists, new cuts have amplified impacts when making career decisions.

Funding hurdles unique to early career scientists pursuing tenure-track positions have caused some to question a career in academia. The average age of a scientists’ first research grant awarded is 42 years old – usually a long way off for newly minted PhDs. It doesn’t help that scientists feel they need to work longer and longer hours to be successful in academia.

Funding Structure Changes in the U.S.

Despite a seemingly grim outlook, the NIH has recognized the need to attract bright young scientists to remain in academia. Earlier this year, the NIH proposed a grant capping mechanism, the Grant Support Index (GSI). The intention of the GSI is to increase funding for young, creative scientists and give them additional opportunities through a point system that caps individual primary investigators at three primary funded R01 research grants.

NIH Director Francis Collins recently presented the data supporting these measures, citing diminishing returns on investigators who have four or more R01 grants.

While supportive of efforts to fund young scientists, the approach taken by the NIH was met with swift criticism by prominent biomedical researchers. They feared this would severely impact unusually productive labs and inhibit important work ongoing for abnormally productive scientists.

On June 8th, Dr. Collins announced they were scrapping the GSI index, and instead offering an alternative solution: the Next Generation Researchers Initiative (NGRI).

French President Emmanuel Macron also recently called on young U.S. scientists in an effort to recruit them to France.

Early Career Researchers Offered Hope

The conversation shift towards helping to establish young scientists is welcomed by many early career researchers. In a competitive funding landscape, working discussions on ways to allow ECRs to continue working in their academic fields is especially needed.

The new NGRI initiative increases the percentile of funded research grants for mid-career (10 years or less) or new investigators to the 25th percentile. However, as Dr. Collins noted, “[The money] has to come from somewhere.” While the NGRI initiative seems to be toned from the GSI caps, the compromise seems worthy to help ECRs establish their own research. High profile, established labs should support these initiatives too, for the future of scientific research.

Advocacy Efforts Matter

While early career researchers may be on the fence about pursuing academia, young scientists should remain optimistic about future funding efforts. In January 2017, a Research!America poll revealed the majority of Americans agree funding biomedical research is necessary. However, the public also think scientists need to engage with them more on their research efforts. In fact, a 2016 Research!America poll revealed that most Americans do not know research is conducted nationwide. Clearly, there is more to be done.

To do so, stay informed on potentially popular scientific topics in the media. Secondly, when advocating for science, have some ready-made examples (CRISPR gene editing technologies for example) on how basic science research has translated into notable, usable technologies. Consider ways to explain your own research in digestible and interesting ways.

Early career scientists are shaping what the future of scientific research looks like. Whether developing new technologies or understanding the fundamentals of tomorrow’s big breakthrough, an active, transparent, engaged scientific community is essential for the continued success of scientific research in the United States.

Sources:

Trump’s NIH budget may include reducing overhead payments to universities
Jocelyn Kaiser Mar. 17, 2017 , 5:00 PM-2017 8-2017 7-2017 2-2017 25 – http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-nih-budget-may-include-reducing-overhead-payments-universities

Biotech execs, academic leaders make case for NIH funding at White House meeting
Jocelyn Kaiser May. 9, 2017 , 12:00 PM-2017 8-2017 7-2017 2-2017 25 – http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/biotech-execs-academic-leaders-make-case-nih-funding-white-house-meeting

Administration Releases FY 2018 Budget
http://news.aag.org/2017/05/administration-releases-fy-2018-budget/

NIH Research Funding Trends
http://faseb.org/Science-Policy-and-Advocacy/Federal-Funding-Data/NIH-Research-Funding-Trends.aspx

Young scientists under pressure: what the data show
http://www.nature.com/news/young-scientists-under-pressure-what-the-data-show-1.20871

R01 teams and grantee age trends in grant funding
https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/blog/2015/04/r01-teams-and-grantee-age-trends-grant-funding

Workplace habits: Full-time is full enough
Chris Woolston – https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7656-175a

Critics challenge NIH finding that bigger labs aren’t necessarily better
Jocelyn Kaiser Jun. 7, 2017 , 2:30 PM-2017 8-2017 7-2017 2-2017 25 – http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/critics-challenge-nih-finding-bigger-labs-aren-t-necessarily-better

NIH scales back plan to curb support for big labs after hearing concerns
Jocelyn Kaiser May. 26, 2017 , 3:30 PM-2017 8-2017 7-2017 2-2017 25 – http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/nih-scales-back-plan-curb-support-big-labs-after-hearing-concerns

Political Outsider Emmanuel Macron Campaigns To ‘Make France Daring Again’
Eleanor Beardsley – http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/28/517498543/political-outsider-emmanuel-macron-campaigns-to-make-france-daring-again

Research!America Polling Data. January 2017.
http://www.researchamerica.org/sites/default/files/JAN2017PressReleaseSlides_FINAL.pdf

Teaching expectations in academic science

Whether you enjoy or dread the thought of teaching, it’s an unavoidable reality that early career researchers (ECRs) pursuing academic positions will be expected to teach during their career. For some, teaching could mean overseeing multiple courses and spending dozens of hours lecturing; for others, it may only require giving a few lectures per year. It might involve teaching undergraduates, nursing and health professionals, or perhaps doctorate level students (graduate, medical). But regardless of the form it takes, teaching clearly lies in the future of many ECRs. Never mind the future—for many graduate students serving as teaching assistants (TAs), teaching is already a reality. The widespread expectations for TAs and faculty alike to engage in classroom instruction can be unsettling, especially for those with little teaching experience to draw on.  However, despite near-universal teaching requirements for faculty, there is comparatively little guidance or formal training in educational strategy offered by academic institutions to help young faculty teach effectively.

This disparity seems especially prevalent in later stages of education—stages that PhD scientists tend to be tasked with teaching. Thus, unless ECRs happen to have a background in educating, many will find themselves ill-equipped to oversee classroom instruction. By example, I have heard accounts from several professors who recall arriving at their first faculty teaching position only to be given last year’s lecture PowerPoints and a cursory “good luck!” from the outgoing instructor. With such instances in mind, I decided to write briefly on the subject of education in hopes of helping the ECR community better confront their future teaching obligations.

Prioritizing your teaching objectives: it all depends on who you’re teaching

In a past, pre-graduate school life, I taught biology to high schoolers. From the outset it was clear that merely possessing subject knowledge alone was not enough to achieve teaching success in this age group. Rather, I found the single most important part of that job was to motivate and inspire. No level of content mastery can compensate for that. It is a clear appreciation for this feature of younger learners that often makes the most inspiring teachers also the most successful. Bill Nye, in his beloved children’s television program “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” is a great example if this. (Notwithstanding his newly rediscovered celebrity, I maintain that his greatest contribution to science will always be his 1990’s PBS show. I can hear the theme song now: Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill Nye the science guy!). Although not classically trained in a basic science field—he holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering—his target audience didn’t need a teacher with vast subject knowledge, they needed someone who could encourage and inspire them to pursue science.

Notably, the priorities of teaching aren’t static along the education level spectrum. There is a trade-off that occurs in advancing stages, where the need to motivate becomes less paramount. Advanced degree seekers tend to be self-motivated; after all, a person isn’t typically required to attended college, much less graduate school. Instead, the priority of teachers lies more in communicating material in a dynamic and enlightening manner (see the upper half of my illustration below). But while motivation isn’t needed to ensure that these students will study, it doesn’t mean that it’s not still important. Medical students will study because they have to. But superior teachers educate in such a way that students will learn the material because they want to.

The future of education at all levels is trending towards becoming increasingly electronic, mobile, convenient, and thus isolated. Consequently, a key task for future educators will be finding classroom techniques that actually make it worth the student’s time to be physically present instead of just studying alone. To achieve this, it is valuable to be familiar with practical classroom teaching strategies, ideally grounded in education theory. But once again, as described above, there is a mismatch here: the teachers in greatest need of support and training in educational techniques (i.e., those teaching advanced students) generally receive it the least. By comparison, consider elementary education, where it is commonplace for teachers to hold degrees in the education field (see the lower half of the diagram).

Empirical evidence for teaching paradigms in science education   

Given that most ECRs will end up teaching students found on the right side of the diagram, the ability to deliver dynamic lectures that facilitate knowledge acquisition effectively will be a priority. Thankfully, there is whole field of inquiry dedicated to how educators can achieve this end. Researching this subject for a graduate seminar course of late, I at once found myself wanting to see empirical evidence that a given teaching technique could produce demonstrably better learning outcomes than another. Teaching high school, so much of my “evidence” about what worked was anecdotal; but now, having been immersed in academic research, everything revolved around whether it could be proven—that is to say—whether it actually worked.

After considerable digging through the literature of the field, I sensed that this subject is underexplored. I suspect this is partly because it’s difficult to study how learners learn in a controlled setting.  Eventually I came across a few reports which addressed the issue with the empirical perspective I was searching for. For example, Richard Mayer, a UCSB psychologist specializing in the science of learning (how people learn) and the science of instruction (how to help people learn), has published several studies on this topic, mostly regarding medical education. A focus of his work is how to improve multimedia design (e.g. PowerPoint) to better facilitate learning. To me, this is an area in dire need of investigation given the pervasiveness of “death by PowerPoint” in virtually all institutes of higher learning. Helpfully, his group has reported evidence outlining specific strategies for slide design that result in improved learner responses. Chief among their findings were the advantages of replacing text with visual representations wherever possible. They also revealed quantifiable benefits of eliminating extraneous material. Even marginal slide details like the text size, font, and color were found to have appreciable impacts on learning outcomes.

Embracing and enjoying the privilege

For those not enthusiastic about the prospect of teaching, it may seem like a bothersome distraction from the “more important” work of lab research. Yes, the investment in preparing and delivering quality lectures is time consuming. But keep in mind that it might yield some unanticipated benefits, and confer a sense of gratification from knowing that great teaching leaves an enduring mark on students, even when you might not expect. “We never know,” Stephen King once wrote, “which lives we may influence, or when, or why.” That it is a privilege to teach young minds is a truth worth remembering should the future present the opportunity.

Featured image: photo by Ed Schipul. Licensed under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. Obtained via flickr

References:

Emma Whittington (July 22, 2016). The Impact of Teaching Assistantships

Bill Nye the Science guy (Wikipedia)

Bill Nye: The Science Guy [Original Intro] (YouTube media)

Rachel Becker and Alessandra Potenza  (May 19, 2017). “Twitter’s scientists introduce themselves to Bill Nye”. The Verge

Kusurkar, RA et al. (April 25, 2011). Motivation as an independent and a dependent variable in medical education: a review of the literature. Med Teach, Vol. 33 , Iss. 5

Ally, M. & Prieto-Blázquez, (January, 2014). What is the future of mobile learning in education? J. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 11:142.

Mary Gearing (September 2, 2016). Choose-Your-Own Experiment: Active Learning in Introductory Biology Courses

Richard Mayer faculty homepage. UC Santa Barbara Psychology and Brain Sciences website

Mayer, RE (November, 2008) Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am Psychol. Vol 63(8)

Mayer, RE (May 20, 2010) Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ. Volume 44, Issue 6

Don McMillan (2012) Life After Death by PowerPoint (YouTube media).

Issa N. et al. (March 12, 2013) Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Med Educ. Volume 47, Issue 4

Naureen Ghani (January 27, 2017) Why Teaching Makes You Smarter

Stephen King (July 24, 2012). Quotation from 11/22/63: A Novel. Gallery Books.

More than any other product of human scientific culture scientific knowledge is the collective property of all mankind.

            Konrad Lorenz

New technology has enabled science to progress at an unprecedented speed. Advancements previously thought impossible such as mapping the brain and identifying galaxies in space are being done now. The most exciting part is that these discoveries are made possible through people like you and me.

Citizen science refers to data collection and analysis by members of the general public, often in collaboration with professional scientists. It is especially critical now, as many fields of science produce big data which needs innovative techniques for analysis. By advancing the study of big data, citizen scientists are empowering researchers to make new discoveries. In this post, I will discuss the role of citizen science in today’s world.

The Scientific Status Quo

Science has changed since the founding of the National Science Foundation in 1950. It has grown as an enterprise with a shift from invention to innovation. Historian Harold Evans defines innovation as “a universal application of the solution by whatever means… Invention without innovation is a pastime.” As technology become increasingly sophisticated, the path from scientific discovery to product becomes more time-consuming, more expensive, and more uncertain. With a global force, science can advance more rapidly and research becomes a personal endeavor for many. Citizen scientists learn about the ways science directly affects our lives and understand its importance.

Citizen Science, Then and Now

Citizen science has a long and distinguished past. Data on temperature and humidity from French wine merchants in the 14^th century is used in present models of climate change. In the 19^th century, novice naturalists such as Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace did revolutionary work in evolutionary biology. These citizens were driven by enthusiasm, passion, and curiosity. Other examples include the polymath Benjamin Franklin, the monk Gregor Mendel, and the mathematician Ada Lovelace.

Citizen science today is used to record aspects of the environment people like and dislike. Ordinary men and women use their cell phones and sensors to record data on birds and butterflies as well as pollution and species loss. The Crowd & The Cloud is a documentary series that showcases the power of citizen science in the digital age. The show is directed by Geoffrey Haines-Stiles, who believes that, “Citizen science is as American as apple pie, with Founding Fathers Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson meticulously noting wind, rain, and temperature daily.” Ultimately, this show hopes to motivate viewers to partake in citizen science projects.

Foldit

Foldit is an example of a successful citizen science project. Professor David Baker, a protein research scientist at the University of Washington, founded the Foldit project in 2008. The idea is that a protein’s structure can be determined from its chemistry. As each protein is built from a linear chain of amino acids, its shape will be the most stable configuration. Users must determine the protein-folding permutation that best fits. Scientists can then use these solutions to target diseases and create biological innovations. A 2010 paper in Nature credited Foldit’s 57,000 players with providing useful results that matched or outperformed algorithmically computed solutions.

The premise behind Foldit is that humans have spatial-reasoning capabilities unmatched by current computers, making protein-folding an intuitive visual endeavor. One top-ranked Foldit player told Nature in 2010 “It’s essentially a 3-D jigsaw puzzle.” “When you’ve got it right,” another player said, “you see your protein moving and changing shape, and your score rushes up. Your own player name rushes up through the ranks, and the adrenaline starts.”

Role of Citizen Science

Since Foldit, many more citizen science projects have been established. Sebastian Seung, a professor of computational neuroscience at Princeton, developed Eyewire. This game involves participants in mapping neurons in the brain. Many citizen science projects have people collecting data, making observations, or exploring a solution space. However, there are efforts in which citizens drive science in parallel and in competition with professional academics. The Ronin Institute is an example of such an independent scholarly research institute. It provides an institutional affiliation, connections with fellow scholars, and support for conference travel and grant applications. You can also learn more about citizen science from our very own PLOS citizen science blog.

When people are doing something they are passionate about, they will do their best to produce a great product. It is exciting to see what discoveries will be uncovered through the aid of such citizen scientists.

References

1. Haines-Stiles, G. (2017, March 9). The Crowd and the Cloud: A Director’s Take. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@crowdandcloud/the-crowd-the-crowd-the-directors-take-55e45f8fabbb
2. Buchan, K. (2016, July 3). Citizen science: how the net is changing the role of amateur researchers. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/03/citizen-science-how-internet-changing-amateur-research
3. Xue, K. (2014, January 31). Popular Science. Retrieved from: http://harvardmagazine.com/2014/01/popular-science
4. Toerpe, K. (2013). The rise of citizen science. The Futurist, 47(4), 25

Featured Image by NASA/JPL-Caltech licensed under Creative Commons License 2.0 

One of the most challenging aspects of graduate school is exploring opportunities that go beyond the traditional academic science path. To understand these paths better, I started researching different opportunities in which other graduate students had found success and fulfillment. One area that fascinates nearly everyone I speak with in science is entrepreneurship. In this post, I’d like to share some of my experience learning about entrepreneurship and ways to get involved through taking advantage of programs available to graduate students and interviewing a colleague about her experience starting her own company.

NCET2 Demo Days 2017

My first step in learning about this post-grad path was a course offered at a neighboring university (I am an academic, after all), entitled, “Life Science Entrepreneurship.” This course was designed as an introduction to the basics of entrepreneurship for advanced degree holders at the Texas Medical Center. Meanwhile, I also applied to be a University Fellow for the National Council for Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer (NCET2). The focus of this organization is to bring together university startups, venture capitalists, and policymakers to provide networking opportunities and to highlight the programs offered through public policy efforts available to these startups. The goal is to communicate how basic science research and subsequent commercialization is a vital part of the United States economy.

After being selected for the NCET2 internship program, I attended their recent 2017 Demo Days in Washington D.C. At this event, they brought together the aforementioned network of stakeholders to help university startups gain access and expand their resources and network. University startup participants in this program can be trainees, recent trainees, PIs, or combinatorial groups selected by the corporate venture capital divisions. The startups pitch their technologies to the corporate venture capitalists (VC’s). If a VC is interested in learning more, they are scheduled for individual meetings to explore partnership opportunities. In addition to the VC access, the startups are also educated on government programs seeking to commercialize technologies discovered in the lab.

Resources for University Startups: I-Corps and SBIR

Often as scientists, we may develop a new technology, technique, or entirely new model system for our own purposes, and it may not immediately be apparent that such technology development has commercialization potential. To allow scientists a space to explore this potential, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has introduced the Innovation-Corps program, or I-Corps, aimed at helping scientists develop their ideas and foster entrepreneurship. The MD Anderson Cancer Center recently hosted an I-Corps workshop, where we learned about the types of entrepreneurial skill-building workshops offered through I-Corps. The topics covered included developing meaningful value propositions for consumers, how to conduct consumer interviews in order to deliver a product that fulfills a customer need, and the process of writing a competitive business plan for venture capital funding. To be eligible for the I-Corps program, you must have a technology funded by a recent, relevant NSF grant, or be selected in a “regional node” which are set up around the United States. Upon completing a regional or national I-Corps program, you are then eligible for the Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs that provide funding needed for the growth of these companies, similar to an angel investor. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has an SBIR/STTR program, although its eligibility requirements differ.

Other pathways to entrepreneurship

These opportunities also led me to think about other points of entry for graduate students to pursue entrepreneurship. I didn’t have to look too far. A fellow graduate student in the Molecular and Human Genetics program at Baylor College of Medicine, Brittany Barreto, has taken on entrepreneurship in an endeavor separate from her Ph.D dissertation work. This struck me as a pretty unique situation, so I caught up with her to gain some insights in our abbreviated interview below.

Q: Can you describe your startup and your goals for your company?

“Pheramor is pioneering the next generation of match-making. Our service aims to reduce the number of failed first dates by providing matches that are more likely to lead to success. Pheramor’s product will include a web and mobile interface for singles to communicate and a direct-to-customer genetic sequencing kit. We will sequence genes associated with human attraction and compatibility and incorporate this information into our matching algorithm. Based on these data, our machine learning algorithm will aid our customers to filter through the thousands of online singles to find their perfect match.”

Q: How did you become interested in entrepreneurship as a graduate student?

“Since I was an undergraduate, I knew that I did not want to do academics and wanted to go to industry. In my first year of graduate school, a post-doc asked me, ‘What does industry mean?’ I realized at that point, I wasn’t sure! So I decided I needed to find a mentor from a local biotech company. As it turns out, Houston does not have many large biotech companies. Instead it has a strong startup community. At first I did not think I had the entrepreneurship gene but slowly but surely I realized I was made for this.”

Q: What advice do you give to other graduate students who want to start a company?

“The road is not well traveled. You will have to navigate the process by yourself very often. You will wonder why you’re not just taking the standard route and apply for a post-doc. Your thesis committee will be confused as to why you’re trying something so unconventional. That’s why you’ll need to make friends—lots of them! It’s all about the network. Contact local startups and ask to meet with them. Buy them coffee and pick their brain about their road to entrepreneurship. You’ll be surprised how receptive and open they are to mentoring you. Then follow up with them every few weeks with an update about yourself. Maintain these contacts, they are your company’s lifeline! Pheramor would not have grown so quickly if I didn’t have people experienced in entrepreneurship backing me up and showing me the ropes.”

Q: What is your ultimate career goal?

“I used to always have a 10 year career plan. Entrepreneurship has changed me to not knowing what next week will look like! All I know for sure is I want to graduate with my PhD this year, become the full-time CSO [Chief Scientific Officer] of Pheramor, and see where that takes me! Being an entrepreneur means feeling comfortable with risk and the unknown including what your life looks like even within the next year.”

Conclusion

Entrepreneurship is often quoted as an experiential learning process; therefore, no two paths of entrepreneurship look alike. However, the first step in the process is awareness and being receptive to the opportunities—wherever they may lead you.

Featured Image: Flickr user uberof202 ff, www.uberoffices.com, uberoffices.com/blog/image-sharing/  CC BY-SA 2.0

Resources:

Grzeskowiak, Caitlin. 2017 Dec. 7. How to transition to a biotech startup after your PhD | PLOS ECR Community Blog.

http://blogs.plos.org/thestudentblog/2016/12/07/draft-how-to-transition-to-a-biotech-startup-after-your-phd/

Life Science Entrepreneurship Course

https://sites.google.com/view/mgmt633/

NCET2 University Entrepreneurs Internship

https://ncet2.org/internship.html

National Council for Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer (NCET2)

https://ncet2.org

American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Restoring the Foundation: The Vital Role of Research in Preserving the American Dream. 2014. Sept. 16.

http://www.amacad.org/content/Research/researchproject.aspx?d=1276

NCET2 Demo Day 2017 Conference

https://ncet2.org/2017-annual-conference/2017-demo-day.html

Information about I-Corps program

https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/i-corps/about.jsp

I-Corps Regional Node Information

https://www.nsf.gov/awards/award_visualization.jsp?org=NSF&pims_id=504806&ProgEleCode=8045&from=fund

NIH sponsored SBIR program

https://sbir.nih.gov

Science communication and advocacy have become very important to scientists today, perhaps more than ever before. After the successful science marches throughout the country and abroad, the next critical step is to keep this dialogue open and provide the public with sufficient avenues to stay connected to science. Such efforts should foster a continued interaction between scientists and their communities.

As a member of Scientists Inc., a national science outreach organization, I had the opportunity to make this idea a reality by organizing the Bay Area chapter of our annual science festival – taste of science.  It was a wonderful experience bringing these amazing scientists out to bars and cafés to talk about their science to the public, sometimes with live demos, sometimes with music. taste of science is a excellent platform to connect the public to science – and the beauty is that it’s run by volunteers across the country, most of whom are ECRs.

Taking a risk…and reaping the rewards!

Many of our ECRs had not been on such a public stage before, but they took a leap of faith and agreed to give talks. In the end, they thoroughly enjoyed the experience! General speaking opportunities can help ECRs to zoom out and look at the big picture perspective of their science. Getting in touch with this larger view is helpful not only for community engagement but also in your professional life. For instance, it might help you in explaining your science and its relevance to grant reviewers or potential sponsors. It can also be a highly motivating experience – especially witnessing public excitement for your research and then getting the chance to have deeper conversations! Life as an ECR can be really hard at times, so it’s great to remind yourself why you love science in the first place.

For me, taste of science wasn’t just about sharing knowledge; I found that it was a great opportunity to humanize science. Sharing a beer or a joke with a person carrying the ‘scientist’ label instantly takes the edge off of cold attitudes towards scientists and science. It’s a good way to break down the wall between the ‘scientists’ and ‘lay audience’. We must also remember that all of us are a ‘lay audience’ when we’re not dealing with our own expertise. The breadth and depth of science and other knowledge is so vast that no one can know everything – we must instead share and learn from each other.

As an ECR it can be a daunting task to take time out of your already packed work hours to participate in such initiatives, be it as a speaker, organizer or audience, but it is totally worth it. We can stay locked up in laboratories and keep complaining about the social and political climate around science – but keep in mind that no one can be your advocate better than you. Get involved in your local science cafés, science outreach organizations and make the bridge between the academic ivory towers and the community. If no such thing exists in your community, start one! If you need support, Scientists Inc. is always happy to help you set up events in your city.

Featured image taken by author at taste of science in San Francisco.

Collaborations are an important topic in science because they allow us to produce far-reaching science while still being experts in our small niches. Every scientist, regardless of their seniority, can understand the current funding situation, and with that they should appreciate the fact that collaborations are essentially required for both grants and publications. You can’t survive without them. Here is a great, comprehensive article on how to establish and maintain successful collaborations. Another ECR blogger, Daniel Mediati, also recently published a great article on why collaborations are so important. However, I would like to address a lesser-discussed topic about collaborations: why you should visit your collaborating lab.

I recently established a collaboration for my project and decided that I wanted to visit their lab. I thought the techniques they were using were very interesting and I really wanted to learn them myself. The problem: I only had one week to spend there, but I went for it anyways. The result: I’m extremely grateful for the experience, and I learned way more than I had anticipated. Here are a few tips that I learned while I was there.

1. Immerse yourself in the work at all costs.

If you have only one week, you can survive working 14+ hour days for that one week. Why? You need to really understand the process of the experiments. I see my fellow grad students often struggle to explain, both in writing and presentation, the work of their collaborators. This lack of understanding is a huge problem because it is after all your research, you need to be able to communicate it. The best way to understand what your collaborators are doing is to actually do the experiments, but as we all know, this takes time. So put the time in. The experience of physically doing the experiments with them gives you the ability to really discuss the techniques in your writing and presentations. This level of understanding can be an asset if you are attempting to secure grant funding or even win a poster competition.

2. Appreciate the amount of time it takes.

Appreciating the work goes hand-in-hand with this concept of immersing yourself. Many people grow frustrated with their collaborators because they don’t understand the amount of work their collaborator is actually putting in. If you are taking part in the experiments with them, putting in long days, then you have a better appreciation of what they are doing. This person is taking time out of his or her research to take 2^nd, or less, authorship on yours, you should appreciate that.

3. Learn more about a technique you didn’t originally intend to investigate.

In most cases, you’re collaborating because the other lab does things that you can’t do at your home institution, and you should definitely take advantage of that. If you have downtime, and you see someone doing a technique you know nothing about, or using an instrument that is foreign to you, simply ask and most people are willing to oblige. You could even anticipate these opportunities by reading the lab’s recent publications or checking out the facilities list on the institution’s website to see what interests you. Even if you don’t get to use the technique or equipment in the immediate, you gain a better understanding of the available technology, and maybe you can apply it to your future work.

4. Network, network, network.

Doing the experiments aren’t the only advantage to visiting though, don’t forget to network while you’re there. As I have said before, collaborations are the life-force of modern science, and the people you meet in your collaborating lab may be the ones you call in favors to when you have your own lab. After all, you are collaborating with them for a good reason. Additionally, you are going to have to communicate continuously with these people and that’s a lot easier when you’ve become friends. It’s also nice to have dinner buddies for the next conference, or even connections for future careers. Establish friendships by taking time to ask them about their lives and their research during an incubation time, go to the pub for a few hours, or wherever it is that you like. Get to know everyone you possibly can.

5. Find other resources at the institution.

During my visit I was at a mechanical engineering department, but I’m a cellular biologist, so it was a very different atmosphere. They had a few seminars posted that didn’t seem to be too far over my head, so I went to them. It’s not something I would go to at my home institution, but it was a good experience, and it helped kill an hour incubation time. I also had the chance to listen to speakers that I most likely would have never seen at my home institution. Other than seminars, there are plenty of activities you could take advantage of: tours, poster presentations, career fairs, festivals; you could benefit from anything that is happening while you’re there.

6. Allow yourself to have some fun.

You may be in a city you’ve never had the chance to visit, so go see a little bit of it. I was visiting the East Coast, so I gave myself a few hours on my first day there to visit a national monument I had never seen before. If you’re in a smaller city, go to a unique restaurant or a museum. If you’re an active person, do some outdoor activity, like hiking or kayaking or biking that you wouldn’t normally partake in. I’m a runner, so I took full advantage of the beautiful running trail surrounding the campus whenever I could.

My main point is you should take advantage of every single second you have while visiting, especially if you’re constrained to a small amount of time. It’s an experience you likely won’t get to repeat, so you have to make the most of it. You never know what you will gain or learn, or who you will meet!

Featured Photo: “LEGO Ideas Research Institute.” The image belongs to the flickr account of BRICK 101 and is used under a Creative Commons CC license Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). 

References:

1. Elisabeth Pain. (2016) Building Successful Collaborations. Science Blogs: Scientific Community.
2. Daniel Mediati. (2017) Science is the name but collaboration is the game. PLoS Blogs: PLoS ECR Community.
3. Mónica I. Feliú-Mójer. (2015) Effective Communication, Better Science. Scientific American: Guest Blog.

The growing need for collaboration among young scientists is more essential now than ever before, with careers in research becoming more uncertain and perilous.

In unfamiliar surroundings on the opposite side of the world, one could be forgiven for feeling a little apprehensive. Standing at the entrance of the world-leading Li Ka Shing Center at Stanford University, a sense of intimidation overwhelmed me. I found it incredibly daunting to enter where so many laureates and scholars, such as Andrew Fire and Thomas Südhof, have famously studied or worked.

Inside, our seats were organized in a circle as we each introduced ourselves. As the introductions circled, it dawned on me that what I had long considered to be the home of innovation, excellence and eminence was now my home, albeit temporarily. Each of us in this intimate circle had been selected for the SPARK international bioinnovation and entrepreneurship course in translational research. Within this small room was an exciting and rich diversity of scientists covering extensive fields of research, from almost every continent of the globe. This was extremely reassuring. My ultimate objective at Stanford was not only to better understand bioinnovation, but to learn from, work with, develop and foster collaborative partnerships with scientists across multiple disciplines of research. Actively implementing this global collaborative frame of mind was tough, however I can honestly say with the highest zest, it has been one of the most career-rewarding experiences. As always, there were lessons to be learned and I sure had my fair share of these experiences, all of which opened my eyes as an early career researcher (ECR), and I hope my story does the same for others.

Step outside the comfort zone
Collaborating with others was something I hadn’t actively sought out during my short research career as a PhD candidate. It may be a natural tendency for ECRs to seek the comfort and familiarity of working with their own team or group. This creates routine and fluency, both of which can be important for a successful career. But the desire to step away from this refuge, interrupt this cycle and breakaway from the comfort zone to engage and collaborate with other like-minded scientists is one worth pursuing. It’s important to always look beyond the familiarity of your PhD to understand and define your future path in science.

ECRs must collaborate
Researchers that are just starting out constantly fear the pressure of scarce funding and employment insecurity. This aspect of career uncertainty has been the focus of much debate and will continue to dominate scientific discussions in the future. Researchers know how costly, complex, uncertain and perilous a career in scientific research can be, with no defined direction that will suit everyone. Cooperation and collaboration are paramount to maintain a consistent pace of scientific discovery. Whether your research goal is to alleviate antibiotic resistance or control the quantum properties of small metallic nanostructures, ECRs share the common goal of advancing their field through new research. All scientists encounter many obstacles that can only be tackled by teamwork and the interdependence of different skill sets.

As with all things, there are challenges and setbacks
But collaboration isn’t always easy. I cannot pretend that actively probing for collaborative opportunities across fields and disciplines, and merging skill sets with different researchers is always comfortable. Collaboration presents many challenges, such as contribution pressures, cultural differences and even personality clashes.

Collaboration requires constant hard work and maintenance between all team members. At Stanford I learned that establishing camaraderie with the team first, away from scientific work, facilitated better team interaction and communication when it came down to research, as there was less anxiety around contributing suggestions and input from members. This always created a relaxed, yet more efficient environment, and I formed strong connections as a result.

Reaping the many benefits of collaborative research
Collaboration helps ECRs develop into prosperous scientists, by presenting networking opportunities and exposure to new views and perceptions. These factors help an ECR all of which strengthen maturity as a researcher during these early years. In fact, a recent paper in Science Advances finds that multinational collaborative publications achieve higher impact and an overall greater citation rate than publications without a multinational collaborative mindset. As ECRs we should actively implement this overlooked and often-forgotten collaborative demeanor throughout our day. My experience has helped me make countless new connections during the international SPARK course at Stanford and in Sydney. In fact, one of these collaborators became my mentor, a relationship I will always value. I have no doubt the new relations we form as ECRs when adopting this collaborative frame of mind will lead to many profitable ideas and fruitful alliances in the future, and knowing that we can face complex research questions together as a team is very exciting.

Featured image is in the public domain.

References List
Eastlack, S. (2017) How Scarce Funding Shapes Young Scientists. PLoS Blogs: PLoS ECR Community.

Fiske, P. (2009) Opportunities: Career Advantages of Collaboration. Science Careers.

Hsiehchen, D., Espinoza, M., Hsieh, A. (2015) Multinational Teams and Diseconomies of Scale in Collaborative Research. Science Advances. Vol. 1(8), e1500211.

Jones, S. L., Myers, S. L., Biordi, D. L., Shepherd, J. B. (1998) Advantages and disadvantages of collaborative research: a university and behavioral health care provider’s experience. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 12(5):241-246.

Lamberts, J. (2013) Two Heads are Better Than One: The Importance of Collaboration in Research. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jennifer-lamberts/two-heads-are-better-than_1_b_3804769.html

Mochly-Rosen, D., Grimes, K. (2014) A Practical Guide to Drug Development in Academia: The SPARK Approach. Springer Publishing.

WHO Global Report on Surveillance of Antibiotic Resistance. 2014. http://www.who.int/drugresistance/documents/surveillancereport/en/

Why a clinical research conference?

Customarily, attending a scientific conference has a way of helping one reexamine their objectives and priorities in pursuing research. Amid all the seminars, posters and talks, you can’t help but develop a real appreciation for the spirit of collaboration and the collective exchange of knowledge that such meetings foster. The case for why ECRs should attend conferences in general has been made on this blog before, so I won’t reproduce it here. However, the case for attending a clinically-oriented conference might be unfamiliar to many readers. So if you, like me, happen to be an ECR training in the basic sciences, you may be wondering—why attend such a conference?

The SABCS conference

I recently was afforded an opportunity to investigate this question. Last December, the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) held its 39^th annual meeting. This marked my first time attending a conference with a predominantly clinical focus. Although a variety of basic science presentations and posters were littered throughout, it was clearly medicine, surgery, and clinical trials that animated the conference. While SABCS offered all the familiar benefits you might expect attending any ordinary conference, I found it also offered something more: A striking and tangible reminder of why we engage in scientific research in the first place (or at least why we should).

Making inroads: basic science in the clinical arena

Witnessing basic science research arriving in the clinical realm firsthand can be an inspiring force for weary and lab-sequestered researchers. For example, consider how the work which initially unmasked the heterogeneity of breast cancer has changed its clinical management. In the past, the disease was viewed as a single, monolithic entity. Today, it is routinely categorized into one of several subtypes (the so-called “intrinsic subtypes”, i.e. luminal, HER2+, triple negative, etc). This paradigm originated in a basic science laboratory, but has long since been adopted into clinical practice. In fact, the author of the landmark study first describing the molecular profiles of breast cancer, Dr. Charles Perou, was on site and delivered a keynote address.

Another good example of basic science making headway in the clinical realm is the field of microRNA research. Once limited to molecular biology circles, SABCS featured several seminars on the topic, mostly focusing on their diagnostic potential as serum biomarkers (recent reports have found that miRNAs are present and stable within the circulation). The concept that miRNAs could be purified from a routine blood collection and used as a novel disease biomarker is an enticing concept—one which hasn’t been lost on physician-scientists.

A highlight: the moving address by Eric P. Winer, MD

For me, the highlight of SABCS was the award lecture given by Dr. Eric P. Winer, director of Breast Oncology at Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. His talk overviewed just how far the field has progressed since the 1990s, summarizing the biggest advancement in a single word: heterogeneity (see Perou, above). Despite this accomplishment, he acknowledged that great challenges remain, chiefly: (1) drug resistance, (2) over-treatment, and (3) health disparities. He could have concluded here, and overall it would have been an engaging and insightful lecture. But it was what he related next that made his talk truly remarkable and underscored the impact basic science research can have on a person’s health and quality of life. Pivoting to a more personal tone, he gave a brief but intimate portrayal of his life and the astounding adversity which marked it.

His was a story of personal hardship; a childhood racked with chronic maladies worsening with age. Diagnosed with Hemophilia A as a child, his early years were typified by severe bruising events, uncontrolled bleeding, and frequent hospital visits. At the time, life expectancy was about 13 years. But then—a miracle— the 1970s brought purified clotting factor VIII to market (factor VIII is defective in Hemophilia A). Now, with periodic factor VIII transfusions, bleeding could be curbed.

As the 1980s rolled around, multiple studies appeared describing unusual and inexplicable infections in young men around the San Francisco bay area. These harbingers of the AIDS epidemic to come were accompanied by reports describing similar infections in hemophilia patients who received factor VIII transfusions. A medical resident at the time, Dr. Winer saw the studies and, prophetically, he realized: “If one of us has got it, we all do.” Shortly thereafter, he was diagnosed with HIV—a victim of blood products contaminated with the virus. Worse still, much of the blood supply was later found to be co-contaminated with hepatitis C virus as well, for which he was also confirmed positive.

Still a young man, he had been diagnosed with three chronic, incurable diseases. For most of us, it’s difficult to even imagine the feelings such misfortune most evoke. As he neared the end of his talk, the auditorium continued to listen silently. This was the first occasion he had ever shared his story with a public audience. I witnessed more than one teary eye in the crowd.

Closing thoughts on the clinical conference experience

Although the conference was filled with exciting new science and promising treatments, to me, Dr. Winer’s personal address was the most memorable part. His story leaves one feeling profoundly humbled, even embarrassed given the trivial things we tend to gripe about. It was a compelling reminder to take stock of the all that we too often take for granted. While graduate school is trying at times (to put it lightly…), we’d do well to remember what a privilege it is to have the means and ability to even partake in research. Unsuspecting experiences like this are what make attending conferences an indispensable experience for ECRs. For all these reasons and more, the merits of attending a clinical conference are plain. And at the end, you’ll get to depart with renewed perspective about the real purpose for doing basic science research.

Featured image: obtained via flickr, public domain CC0 license.      

References

Yoo Jung (February 24, 2014). Why Every Science Student Should Attend a Conference

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

Sørlie, T. et al. (September 11, 2001). Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science; vol. 98 no. 19.

Perou, C.M, et al. (August 17, 2000). Molecular portraits of human breast tumours Nature 406, 747-752

Charles M. Perou faculty page, University of North Carolina School of Medicine website

Mitchel, P.S. et al. (July 29, 200). Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers for cancer detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science; vol. 105 no. 30.

Eric P. Winer faculty page, Harvard Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute website

Wikipedia entry on Hemophilia A. Accessed on April 4^th, 2017

History of Bleeding Disorders. National Hemophilia Foundation. Accessed on April 4^th, 2017

Bibler, M.R. et al. (December 12, 1986). Disseminated Sporotrichosis in a Patient With HIV Infection After Treatment for Acquired Factor VIII Inhibitor. Journal of the American Medical Society. 256(22):3125-3126