Hiring, Firing, and Beyond: How to be an Effective Supervisor

At the Biophysical Society 60th Annual Meeting in Los Angeles, the Committee for Professional Opportunities for Women (CPOW) hosted a panel discussion called Hiring, Firing, and Beyond: How to be an Effective Supervisor.

The panel included Dorothy Beckett (University of Maryland), Kelly Knee (Pfizer), Prithwish Pal (Illumina), Rohit Pappu (Washington University in St. Louis), Rajini Rao (Johns Hopkins University), and Joanna Swain (Bristol-Myers Squibb). Session organizers Sudha Chakrapani (Case Western Reserve University), Gabriela Popescu (University at Buffalo), and Marina Ramirez-Alvarado (Mayo Clinic), facilitated the discussion, which is summarized below.

Panel members stressed that populating the lab with talented, creative, and hard-working trainees is critical to any PI’s success. Whether looking to hire students or postdocs, it is essential to start with a detailed and accurate description of the position. This helps you as the PI to focus on the most important characteristics of the person you are looking for; it also helps applicants to self-select. For a graduate student, highlight techniques the advanced techniques to be used; for a postdoctoral position, highlight opportunities for additional training and career development. Once you are satisfied with the description, send it to colleagues who may know good candidates, and add it to your website. Placing ads in magazines like Science and Nature generate many responses, but many will be irrelevant.

Once you have identified a few interested applicants, you are faced with the challenge of determining who will best fit in with your lab environment and culture. If you have a rotation system for students at your university, use your rotations wisely. Spend time in the first two weeks with the student talking about what question he/she should be looking to answer, rather than the everyday minutiae of the position. Let them know your working style and that of your lab members. Watch, assess, and monitor how the student fits in and adds to the lab.

If you do not have the luxury of time with a potential trainee, ask behavioral questions in your interviews. One prompt to give applicants is, “Tell me about a time you had to deliver something by a certain time and it did not go well.” Let them tell the story and keep asking questions as they talk.

Plan for candidates to spend time with both senior and junior members of the lab so that you can evaluate how they will interact with both; ask your team members for their evaluation of the candidate.

Another challenge you will face as the lab director, is to set boundaries around work schedules. It is helpful to keep in mind that productivity does not always correlate with a magic number of hours spent working in the lab, even if that’s where data are collected and knowledge discovered! Some students can be very productive with a 9-to-5 schedule; whereas others may hang in the lab constantly without accomplishing much. Put more weight on the results of their work than the number of hours they are working.

You may find that a dedicated student has difficulty with a particular task. Hopefully you can help them to overcome the difficulty. Remember that they do not have the necessary experience and may lack perspective; be patient and curious. Start by giving the student small tasks and evaluate how proficient and efficient they are in accomplishing them; this will give you an idea of the roadblock they are facing. Some students have “experiment-phobia” and talk themselves out of taking action; give them license to have things not work out right away. Others feel that they need to be perfect and spend too much time on inconsequential aspects of the work, or proceed at an exceedingly slow pace to avoid mistakes. Emphasize to them that it is okay to fail by telling stories of your own mistakes. This will help them realize that their mistakes can be fixed and are not the end of the world. Give the students a checklist of things that could have gone wrong so that they can try to figure issues out on their own before bringing you in. This will give them a greater sense of ownership over their experiments.

It is of paramount importance to make your expectations clear from the beginning and to hold people accountable to these. If a trainee becomes toxic to the environment in the lab, seek a second opinion before taking irreversible actions. Talk to a senior colleague about your concerns; make sure your expectations are reasonable and have been communicated clearly. Once you are clear that the trainee is simply a poor fit, do not wait too long to ask them to leave. Yes, it is never pleasant or easy to let people go; however, keep in mind that the price your lab pays may be a steep one.

Once you made the decision to let someone go, talk to them in private. Be pragmatic rather than placing blame, and always be civil. Give them enough time to find a new position. If you are asking a postdoc to move on before his/her contract is up, make sure that you have documentation about their behavior.

In keeping a productive and positive lab environment be mindful not to transfer your stressors onto your lab members. Instead find a peer or a senior colleague to talk these over; your stress can negatively affect both your home and your lab activities. Do not put undue pressure on lab members and avoid blaming them for all that goes wrong; such a highly demanding environment may inadvertently encourage someone to fabricate data, which is every PI’s nightmare! However, also stay away from micromanaging; this is rarely well-received and often takes away from a trainee’s time at the bench.

Whether you are hiring, firing, or managing people keep in mind that trainees join your team to learn from you, to further their skills, and to discover knowledge, while like every other person they have their own challenges to overcome, and that both their aspirations and difficulties are just as important as your own. Treat your team members as co-discoverers rather than employees and inspire them with your good will, patience, and enthusiasm.

Members of the panel and the audience alike agreed that being an effective supervisor requires skills that cannot be gained overnight. One must be patient, willing to learn from mistakes and seek council from a diverse network of colleagues, and aspire to move from managing trainees to truly leading a team.

Impostor Syndrome: The Dilemma between Who We Are and Who We Are Perceived to Be, Part Two

Marina Ramirez-Alvarado, Mayo Clinic and a member of the Biophysical Society’s Committee for Professional Opportunities for Women and Committee for Inclusion and Diversity, and Dwight P. Wynne, California State University, Fullerton, explore the problem of imposter syndrome in this three part series. Read part one here.

Right now, if you think you’re suffering from impostor syndrome (or even if you aren’t), we want you to do a little exercise. Write down ten statements of the form “I am a [noun].” Each statement should reflect a part of your identity, something that is essential to who you are as a person or how you view the world around you.

Some of the statements you wrote down may reflect attributes that you cannot change about yourself; for instance, “I am a woman” or “I am an African-American” (and if you’re a straight white male like Dwight, you may not even have these statements among your list, which is a whole other topic to talk about). Other statements may reflect particular values you choose to embrace: “I am a Muslim,” “I am a Republican,” or “I am an animal lover.” Still other statements likely reflect roles that you value playing in your personal and professional lives: “I am a lab manager,” “I am a mother,” “I am a musician,” or “I am a party animal.”

reveal-921466_960_720

Now comes the hard part: rank these statements from most central to your identity to least central. Or, if that’s too hard, just try to divide them into rough groups.

Got it? Okay, good. What was at the top of the list? Did it have anything to do with being a scientist? If not, how far down was the first science-related identity? Did you even have any statements that are related to your identity as a scientist? What about identities that conflict with your idea of what a scientist is? Where did they rank on your list?

Impostor syndrome has everything to do with identity. If you don’t see yourself as a scientist, then you’ll always feel like an impostor no matter how much success you have as one. In these instances, we have to be honest with ourselves: we’re pursuing a career as a scientist because of someone else, whether that person is a parent, friend, mentor, or even ourselves from five years ago. In some cases, we’ve lost interest in being part of our scientific community, and we’re trying to rationalize that feeling by finding reasons why we’re not good enough to be in it.

The problem is that in many cases, this lack of interest stems from an unconscious rejection by the scientific community of our personal identity. We bring all of our identities to the community, not just the scientific ones, and for better or worse, the community judges us on those parts of ourselves we show to the world.

There are two very different types of impostor pressures that accompany these judgments. In the more commonly explored case, the community judges us—openly or not—negatively based on our personal identity. Being perceived as a “real” member of the community can often be dependent on how much we prioritize our scientific identity over other aspects of our personal identity, or how well those other aspects align with the non-scientific identities of the people most central to the community. When we don’t have the same priorities or we have identities “inconsistent” with the community, we fear that every mistake we make will be marshalled as evidence confirming the community’s already negative judgment of us. Objective indicators of competence are often far less important to our self-perception as a scientist than subjective, social indicators of whether we are perceived as a “real” community member.

In the less commonly explored case, the community completely disregards our personal identity and substitutes its own idealized facsimile. In this case, we’re not worried that every little mistake will “prove” negative judgments correct; instead, we’re worried about disappointing a community that has replaced our identity with an unrealistically positive caricature. It’s the professional equivalent of being “put on a pedestal” in a relationship: we stress out about living up to someone else’s unrealistically high standards. We feel accepted by the community, but worry that the acceptance is on the community’s terms; we fear that as soon as they find out that we aren’t who they’ve defined us to be, we won’t be perceived as “real” community members anymore.

Now that you’ve explored your identity in more detail, we want you to do another little exercise. We want you to write a paragraph describing a successful scientist. What does this person do in a typical day? What skills does this person have? What experiences has this person had that signal competence or community identification? We don’t want you to focus on physical characteristics or beliefs here, but if those things are central to your conception of a “real” scientist, go ahead and add them too. Be as inclusive or exclusive as you like.

Once you’ve written your paragraph, underline everything that doesn’t match with your current identity. If you didn’t underline at least one thing, either you don’t have impostor syndrome or you have very low thresholds for success. Just about everyone with impostor syndrome will have at least one thing in that paragraph that is ridiculous or nonsensical or both.

With these ridiculous statements, we’re conflating the competence we see from others (the final, successful results) with the experience we have had (both the successes and failures).

For instance, a real cell biologist should be able to publish at least two papers per year in Cell or an equivalently prestigious journal without ever getting a paper rejected. A real electrophysiologist will get that darn electrode exactly where it needs to be on the first attempt at running the experiment. In these cases, we’re taking a baseline definition of competence – publishing papers, recording with electrodes – and ratcheting it up to eleven. Of course we don’t measure up, because no one measures up; we just don’t get to see everyone else’s mistakes. Sometimes, those ridiculous expectations are based on our own confusion about what it means to fill a particular professional role. For example, despite being in a biomedical engineering graduate program, Dwight had difficulty conceiving of himself as a “real” engineer because of his inability to correctly use manufacturing or test equipment. Other times, they come from our internalization of broken community norms. For example, Marina has never pulled an all-nighter studying, but some of her fellow chemistry students thought that only students who have pulled all-nighters before finals were “real” chemistry students. Obviously pulling an all-nighter has nothing to do with chemistry, but once the community defined competence through this experience, it became easy for everyone in the community to adopt it as part of their definition of “real.”

Go back and look at your paragraph again, but this time, try to think about who you had in mind when you wrote about each sentence. Is it a mentor? A colleague? Is the entire paragraph about one particular person? We’ve already illustrated that much of your paragraph likely is based outside of reality, but now imagine that you’re the person that inspired most of your paragraph. If everyone saw you in this light, wouldn’t you feel social pressure to live up to it? Wouldn’t you feel like an impostor if you knew that the real you could never live up to this fantasy definition?

In impostor syndrome, we worry over the ways in which our personal identity, skills, and experiences don’t necessarily match up with how we are seen by the community. Sometimes that worry manifests over confirming unrealistically negative judgments; sometimes that worry manifests over failing to live up to unrealistically positive judgments. As much as we seek out objective indicators of success, and as much as other people might point them out to us as reasons why we should feel successful, they don’t do anything to alleviate these impostor feelings. When others assess us, we are more likely to believe their negative judgments than positive ones.  We discount reasons to feel successful because they are not enough to overcome the social weight of negative judgments, or because we see them as evidence of others’ already-unrealistic positive judgments. Impersonal measures of “success” do not alleviate impostor feelings because they cannot help us calibrate how we personally believe others see us.

In this section we’ve explored in detail how the social pressures accompanying community judgments of our personal identity and experiences can lead to impostor feelings, and why objective measures of success don’t necessarily help those feelings go away. While most online resources for impostor syndrome deal with how individuals can minimize the effect of these community judgments, in the last part of our series we are going to discuss some fixes that could be implemented at the community level. After all, when a significant portion of the community identifies in some way with having impostor syndrome, it’s no longer just an individual problem, but one that must also be addressed at the community level.

Stay tuned for part three next week.

Impostor Syndrome: The Dilemma between Who We Are and Who We Are Perceived to Be

Marina Ramirez-Alvarado, Mayo Clinic and a member of the Biophysical Society’s Committee for Professional Opportunities for Women and Committee for Inclusion and Diversity, and Dwight P. Wynne, California State University, Fullerton, explore the problem of imposter syndrome in this three part series. Read part two and part three.

Impostor syndrome – a chronic inability to properly internalize our own accomplishments, leading to feelings of incompetence not supported by external evidence – is a problem facing many of us in science and academia today. While there are plenty of resources available discussing how you, as an individual, can deal with or overcome your own personal impostor syndrome, we have yet to see actions addressing impostor syndrome on a broader level, especially within the scientific community.

groucho-marx-309396_1280

Impostor syndrome is comprised of two different types of perception biases. First, people with impostor syndrome devalue their own set of skills. But equally insidiously, they also tend to define unrealistic goals as the benchmark for “success.” In other words, impostor syndrome is a nasty feedback loop of insecurity and perfectionism, and dealing with one of these issues may cause the other to rear its ugly head.

In our view, however, both of these features of impostor syndrome have the same root cause:  a disconnect between who we are to ourselves and who our communities perceive us to be. When we frame it like this, impostor syndrome is not just an internal, personal struggle but one that can also affect a community.

To borrow a term from cognitive anthropologists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, the scientific community is a “community of practice.” What is meant by this is that the scientific community is a network of people who practice science, linked by both formal and informal connections, and sharing an unwritten set of rules and resources that facilitates communication and learning among its members. Within this scientific community, competence  is often determined formally by receiving favorable reviews of papers, research accomplishments, teaching and mentoring awards, or any number of other ways in which we recognize the contributions of our members. At a local level, competence can be defined informally through interactions with one’s peers in the lab – in most scientific settings, such as a research laboratory, newer members quickly learn who to go to for help with specific problems.

However, engagement with science is often a very personal experience, and the community can only define competence through those parts of our experience we choose to share. The community typically doesn’t know how long we worked on something or how many of our experiments failed or how many things about the field we don’t know or are too embarrassed to admit we forgot. But we do. Therefore, we may be perceived by the community as more competent than we evaluate ourselves to be. This disconnect becomes personal in impostor syndrome: every accomplishment is seen as validation that we’ve managed to fool the community once again into believing we are competent, rather than evidence that we truly are competent and deserve positive feedback from the community.

However, competence is not just about our ability to do the work, but also about our ability to convince others in the community that we can do the work well. This second part requires us to adopt aspects of the community identity as our own. To be a scientist is to be perceived as a scientist. This sometimes means changing the way we dress (dressing down when we are in an informal setting, dressing up when we are in a more formal one) or the hours we work (the “everyone in this lab works 80 hour weeks” mentality), adapting our plans to the way a laboratory does experiments, or revising our presentations to connect with different audiences, to name a few. But it goes further: the way we look or the way we approach the world can also be associated with aspects of the community identity.  For example, scientists who are white, male, and physically able are generally perceived to be more competent solely because they tend to look more like a “typical” member of the scientific community. If we do not fit with these visual expectations, we already begin our participation in the community at a disadvantage, and may continually have to fight uphill against a perceived lack of competence. With impostor syndrome, we magnify this tension between our personal and community identities as evidence that we’re not “real” community members. Instead of celebrating the ways in which we identify with the community, we struggle to reconcile the ways in which we don’t.

In the next part of this series, we will explore in further detail how these two dichotomies – personal experience vs. community competence and personal vs. community identities– can lead to impostor feelings that never quite go away and do us disservice.

Charting the Course: How the BPS Summer Program Prepares Students for Success

Stephani Page, currently a doctoral student at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the Biochemistry & Biophysics Department, was one of the first students to complete the Biophysical Society Summer Research Program, in 2008. After this year’s reunion weekend, she reflected on her experiences in the program and how it helped lay the foundation for success in her PhD program.

ThougStephani-Page-headshoth it feels like yesterday, the swath of gray hairs growing from my temple tells me otherwise: the first day of the Biophysics Summer Course was over seven years ago.  Barry Lentz, the director at the time, laid out his expectations for the next two and half months.  In what I know now to be typical Barry fashion, he announced to my fellow classmates that I was accepted into the PhD program at UNC and that I would gain a lot from the summer program.  He was correct.

The summer program was an opportunity to transition into my PhD program, and I needed to make the most of it.  Looking back on the experience, I can think of many key benefits – but I narrowed it down to just two.  I built a network that would prove to be very important for my tenure as a graduate student; and as I gained knowledge in biophysical applications, I developed skills that would prove beneficial for my classes and research.

Graduate school is stressful, to say the least.  My favorite analogy calls a PhD program an endurance race.  I considered it paramount to build a network of people invested in my success.  The summer course gave me the opportunity to encounter different faculty so that I could begin to assess who would be a part of my system of advocates and advisors.  I met my graduate PI, my committee chair, and two of my committee members during the summer course.  One of those committee members was my summer course PI.  In a broad sense, through the summer course, I learned more about how to identify those individuals who are invested in my success and who care about my wellbeing as I strive to reach my goals.  I began to learn the difference between a mentor and an advisor, why each is important, and the ways that they can overlap.  I learned to identify my own needs as a budding scientist – a skill that I build on to this day.  Though not everyone who participates in the summer course chooses to attend UNC or get a PhD, the ability to identify what you need in order to thrive in any environment is invaluable.

I had a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering and graduated from my master’s program in Biology during the summer course.  To that point, I hadn’t been in an environment where I could blend those two backgrounds, much less make sense of a broad, interdisciplinary field such as biophysics.  The summer course exposed me to biophysical techniques such as x-ray crystallography, NMR, mass spectrometry, and fluorescence spectroscopy.  We were exposed to molecular dynamics simulations and bioinformatics.  Statistical mechanics, partition functions, and Boltzmann – the physics of life took on meaning.  And I was able to apply what I was learning through my own research project.  By the time I was sitting in classes as a graduate student, I had experienced (and endured) these primers on topics that were complex and difficult.  I was able to approach my classes without being intimidated.  In moments of difficulty, I had relationships with faculty and more senior graduate students (who I had encountered during the summer course) and I was able to get help.  As a teaching assistant, I had examples to use in order to help other graduate students grasp concepts.  Overall, it was a crash course in critical analysis, collaboration, and interdisciplinary approaches applicable to any environment

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of my faculty support system during my PhD program were individuals I had encountered during the summer course.  I am thankful to say that I have built a support system of people who had completed the summer course with me, and in years after my class.  There is a common bond that we share as the select few who were able to encounter this experience.  As a graduate student on the cusp of completing my PhD, I look back on the experience with fondness.  The summer course is geared toward students from backgrounds that are underrepresented in biophysics and related areas or science.  Whether those individuals from underrepresented groups adopt the banner or not, as we navigate the various fields of science, we are trailblazers.  We will bring others along.  We will clear paths.  We will mentor, advise, and advocate.  The Biophysics Summer Course, to me, continues to represent an opportunity to learn more about oneself, to gain knowledge and skills applicable to any environment, and to build networks aimed at ensuring one’s own success.

Find out more about the Biophysical Society Summer Research Program in Biophysics.

Dear Molly Cule: How do I staff my lab?

Professor Molly Cule is delighted to receive comments on her answers and (anonymized) questions at mollycule@biophysics.org, or visit her on the BPS Blog.molly_cule_blog1

I’m a new PI. How do I go about staffing my lab?

First, congratulations on becoming a principle investigator! Now how do you make your laboratory successful and productive?  Many resources exist to help get you started, one of which is a guide to scientific management called Making the Right Moves.  This guide was developed by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and can be downloaded as a PDF from the HHMI website that provides resources to early career scientists: http://www.hhmi.org/programs/resources-early-career-scientist-development/making-right-moves. A full chapter of the guide focuses on staffing the laboratory, as well as managing a laboratory and developing a vision for your laboratory. Take advantage of this helpful resource.

An important step towards staffing the laboratory is considering what type of laboratory you want to run, which may be highly dependent upon your institution and startup package. As an example, there are big differences between the type of laboratory and laboratory personnel at a liberal arts college, a mid-sized research university, and a large medical school. This is where your vison for your laboratory comes in to play.  A helpful exercise to establish this vision is to look around your department and institution and observe the types of laboratories that are successful, but also to recognize that it takes time to build a successful laboratory. In generating the vision for your laboratory, you must weigh the costs and benefits of hiring a technician vs. recruiting a postdoc or recruiting undergraduate vs. graduate students to your laboratory. These costs and benefits do include monetary costs and benefit packages, but they also include differences in scientific acumen, capacity to work independently, and expected productivity. It is also important to recognize that technicians and postdocs are employees, but students are not. There are some subtle details that you will have to learn about related to these differences, but your departmental business manager or chair is usually a good resource for understanding these differences at your institution.

When I started my own laboratory, I thought the best place to start hiring was with a postdoc or lab technician. I wanted to hire a person with some knowledge of research, who would need minimal training, and ultimately be able to help get my lab up and running as quickly as possible. Next, I chose to proceed by acquiring students, who require more training. Do not be afraid to be picky about who joins your laboratory, it is okay to tell a student that he/she cannot join the lab. Although saying “no” can be difficult, it is necessary. Focus on quality, not quantity, in your hiring, particularly when you are just starting out.

Now that you’ve established where you want the laboratory to go and what types of people you want to have in the laboratory, you need to go out and get them.  You will need to create a job description that you can distribute on the human resources site at your institution, on the website for your laboratory, on  email list serves, and on job boards hosted by scientific societies to which you belong. It is very important to write a job description that attracts the specific skill set that you need regarding techniques that will be required, areas of research that you study, any minimum requirements that will be required for the level of the position, etc.

Once you have a set of applications, you will need to select candidates to interview  The interview is an important part of the hiring process, because you will want to determine the quality and ‘fit’ of an individual with your particular laboratory. Spend time generating a list of questions to ask during the interview. Think about why you are asking these questions, and be able to articulate (in your head or out loud) how and why the candidates’ answers to these  questions are important to the future success of your laboratory. Be aware of any red flags that suggest a person may not be a good fit for the position. For me, personality and ease of engagement between a perspective member of my laboratory and me are critical components of the interview process. You may have the most qualified candidate on earth, but if you and that person cannot easily communicate or get along, the working relationship will suffer. Remember, it is your laboratory and you need to assemble the best, most productive team possible to achieve the scientific vision that you’ve set out for your laboratory.

Once you’ve determined who would be the best person to hire, you will have to make an offer.  Many of the details related to these offers are less flexible that you may think, particularly when starting up a new laboratory. The pay scale may be dictated by the institution or tied to an offer letter related to your startup package. Hopefully these details won’t get in the way of you hiring the best person for the job, but you may want to investigate these details at the start of your hiring process, when you are drafting the job description

Good luck in staffing your laboratory,

Molly Cule

Biophysicists Share Their Science in the Czech Republic

Czech Republic Networking Event, which took place on June 12, was the first event BPS-supported event to take place in the area. Hosted at the Institute of Photonics and Electronics, The Czech Academy of Sciences, the conference had over 30 participants, including professionals, graduate students and undergrads from the local area. One of the organizers, Michal Cifra, wrapped it up for our blog readers below!

Czech Republic 1The one day event was primarily aimed to facilitate networking in the region of Czech Republic where several high quality molecular biophysics groups in different research institutions are based. These groups did not have much opportunity to interact locally to fully cross-fertilize ideas and further develop their potential beyond pure biophysics towards hot topics such as bioelectronic and biophotonic medicine and other bio-inspired technological applications in photonics and electronics. “Electrostatic, Electrodynamic and Electronic Properties of Biomolecular Systems” was the scientific subtitle of the event. Main specific topics covered were electrostatic, electrodynamic, vibrational and electronic properties of biomolecules and biomolecular nanostructures with the focus on proteins and DNA.

In the first part of the event, 9 speakers, experts in molecular biophysics, bioelectrochemistry and coherent processes in biology, presented the basic concepts of their individual fields as well as their current results. In the second part, the speakers were able to networking with the attendees and have in-depth discussions during the posters session. Finally, a brief tour to the laboratories of Bioelectrodynamics research team was provided.

Czech Republic 2The speakers we had were not only great researchers, but also great lecturers who can really attract and keep attention; so their talks were very enjoyable. We learned that this kind of event provides a great format for the exchange of scientific information as well as networking. The event was really a great way to meet new people. As an organizer, I personally met not only PIs and professors but also postdocs and PhD students.

We hope to organize similar event in the near future!

Were you at the Czech Republic Networking Event? Share your favorite part of the event in the comments below!

Biophysical Society Summer Research Program: A Novel Internship for the Science-Addicted

My name is Manuel Castro, I am a rising senior at Arizona State University, and my major is Biochemistry with a focus in medicinal chemistry. From a relatively young age, I knew that my love of science was considerably broad. I enjoy the fields of chemistry, biology, and physics; through undergraduate lab reseCastro,Manuel headshotarch opportunities, I became more familiar with the interdisciplinary concept of biophysics, and subsequently, the breadth and depth associated with this area of study. When my lab mentor told me about the Biophysical Society Summer Research Program, I enthusiastically applied.

At Arizona State, I work in an NMR lab that focuses on characterizing the structure and function of membrane proteins. Under Dr. Wade Van Horn, my work in his lab has helped direct me towards achieving a career within the large realm of biophysics; namely, structural biology. Upon receiving my acceptance letter to the BPS Summer Program, I began looking into various professors at UNC Chapel Hill that complemented my interests. I quickly found Dr. Matt Redinbo, a professor whose lab also focuses in the structural and chemical biology of proteins involved in human disease, but with X-ray diffraction instead.

Coming from an NMR lab, I entered Dr. Redinbo’s crystallography lab with the intention of exploring the structural biology spectrum more broadly. I really wanted to learn X-ray crystallography first hand to help me decide this coming year where to focus my applications for graduate school programs. I expected my work in Dr. Redinbo’s lab would be very general, including making buffers, cleaning dishes, etc. To my pleasant surprise, the same day I met Dr. Redinbo in person, he already had me setting up crystal trays. Within a few more weeks into the BPS course, I was shadowing graduate students using the x-ray source, which I consider my favorite part of the summer course thus far. In addition to the research, I have learned a lot about scientific communication. We give presentations which help train us for graduate-level coursework by having us present on what their research is about and the direction it is headed.

The program also offers classes that introduce important topics of physical chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology and biophysics. For those who have taken those classes, the course serves as a wonderful review; for those that have not, it is a fantastic introduction to central themes of biophysical studies. These are formal courses with important feedback such graded assignments and quizzes; however, the courses are not for credit. This promotes a comfortable learning environment for students of all levels of education and disciplines.

Overall, I think that this summer has been one of the best of my life so far. The BPS Summer Program allowed me to travel across the country and make new friends from various fields and interests. I would strongly suggest this internship to anyone who is passionate about science, and I have no regrets when I reflect upon my stay at UNC Chapel Hill.