Categories
Archive Emma Kampouraki

Good people skills; ticket to a successful career

By Emma Kampouraki

Professor Sir John Burn has been appointed the new chairman of the Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust a week ago. Immediately after reading the news, I felt that great satisfaction flowing inside me, like I’ve always wanted to see this happening. Then, I remembered. The first day I met him after an honorary lecture he gave in a meeting. I was impressed!

I have met loads of successful people so far in my life. And I consider myself lucky for that. I always take some time to observe them before I talk to them. While introducing myself, I look them deeply in the eyes and try to understand what they might be thinking. However, I’ve never managed to read their minds as they end up saying exactly the opposite to what I was thinking.

I’ve spent a few hours trying to understand what makes them so successful and influential at the same time. I know their secret now; among being clever and hardworking and lots of others, they also have good “people” skills!

Communication
This may be the biggest asset in someone’s life, both personal and professional. Studies show that when a person is speaking, over half of what people understand is coming from body language and particularly the expressions of the face. Another 40% or so comes from voice and tone, with the actual words falling under the remaining one tenth. Without wanting to underestimate words, the picture always counted more anyway. And the picture we are making, while smiling, speaking passionately or transmitting our best energy to the audience is what impresses and convinces people about the real truth. Successful people have a unique way of communication; full of experience, knowledge and expertise without pretending to be robots and forgetting to be humans.

Trust
In order to convince your audience, you definitely need to present your logic and data upon which you based your conclusions. Or, you can simply allow your audience to trust you. Those two are linked, of course, but the latter required a lot more effort. Trust is something we achieve, it’s never given for free. It’s always connected to sincere people that present facts as objectively as possible and never fall under promises they can’t keep. If you say, it’s worth the money I’ll spend on it, you have to prove me wrong when I say I am not paying. Or vice versa.

Patience
People make mistakes. Those who know that, also know that mistakes, excluding only but a few, can be reversible one way or another. As always, you need time to assess what is right or wrong though. And this is where patience fits. All you have to do is concentrate, think clearly, act slowly and give it some time to “cook”. Like you do with your delicious cake. Or employees. Or PhD students.

Empathy
This is the last, but maybe the most important. It defines the connection you cultivate with the people that surround you. Empathy can be demonstrated when you show pure interest in others’ lives. For that, you can be as open-minded as it takes. A detail from a conversation you had last week, that concert ticket they wanted and you found it, the name of their pet or even the last time they said they needed your help. (Try not to freak them out with the last time they popped into the loo.) These little moments are all important to them, as it is your children for you. They show you care.

I hope it’s clearer now what the title was about. People skills make us inspiring. Success is mainly demonstrated by loving your whole life as it is today. Don’t forget to be human, kind and have a bit of humour as well. It might not be necessary, but it helps making each and every day special.

Categories
Archive Cassie Bakshani

Pioneers for Women in STEM

By Cassie Bakshani

Last week we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the birth of Marie Curie, the first person in history to become a double Nobel Laureate. Remembered for her discovery of polonium and radium and her contribution to development of cancer treatments.  It was deflating to read in the same week that only 47% of respondents, from a 3000-person survey conducted by YouGov, could name any woman scientist. In light of this, I thought I would share some of the incredible women- some you will (hopefully) know and others you may not- who have amplified my interest in STEM fields and reinforce my aspiration to pursue a career in science.

Rosalind Franklin: British Chemist
After attaining a PhD in chemistry from Cambridge University in 1945, Franklin was appointed at the Laboratoire Central des Services Chimiques de l’Etat in Paris. Here she worked with Jacques Mering, who taught her crystallography and X-ray diffraction. Franklin developed an expertise in X-ray diffraction and in 1951 began applying these techniques to the study of DNA fibres. This ultimately led to her discovery of the structure of DNA, documented in the famous Photograph 51. Unfortunately, however, Franklin was never truly accredited for this monumental discovery.

Grace Hopper: Mathematician, Military leader and Computer Programmer
Hopper was responsible for the compiler, which is a precursor to the universal Common Business Orientated Language (COBOL) and translates worded instructions into code, so that they can be read by the computer. Hopper was instrumental in revolutionising computer programming and thus the development of modern computing.

Shirley Ann Jackson: Theoretical Physicist
Jackson’s 1950s research led to the development of caller ID and call waiting. This technology laid the foundation for solar cells, fibre optic cables and portable fax machines. Interestingly, she is also the first African American woman to achieve a PhD in theoretical solid state physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. An outstanding achievement, made even more impressive when you consider that of all physics PhDs given in the USA, only 19% of these are awarded to women, and of that, only ~2.5% go to women of minority groups.

Peggy Annette Whitson: Astronaut and Biochemist
Whitson achieved numerous firsts for women astronauts, being the first woman commander to lead a space exploration and the first woman to command the International Space Station- not once, but twice. Not only this, but Whitson also surpassed her predecessor Jeff Williams’ record for most days spent in space by a NASA astronaut, creating a new record of 665 days.

Mary Anderson: Businesswoman and Inventor
It’s likely that you have used Anderson’s invention countless times without realising. In 1903, Anderson was awarded a patent for the development of a windscreen wiper, which would alleviate the dangerous and highly impractical need for a driver to lean out of the cabin to clear the windscreen. Anderson showcased her invention to numerous car companies, but it remained unpopular due to the perception that it would ‘distract drivers’. The windscreen wiper later became standard in car design and manufacturing; however, Mary was never recognised as the inventor and thus never profited.

Rosalyn Yalow: Nuclear Physicist
Yalow developed radioimmunoassay together with Dr Solomon Berson, which can be used to measure small concentrations of bioactive molecules in the blood, including hormones. Using this method, Yalow and Berson tracked insulin, by injecting radioactive iodine into their patient’s blood. In doing so, they found that type 2 diabetes can be attributed to an inefficient use of insulin by the body, rather than a lack of insulin.

Esther Lederberg: Microbiologist and Geneticist
Lederberg was true trailblazer in bacterial genetics, responsible for the discovery of the lambda phage. The lambda phage is a bacterial virus with a mechanism of virulence which differs from other viruses; it doesn’t destroy cells, but rather integrates its DNA into the bacterial DNA, thus ensuring it is spread to subsequent generations. It is still used successfully as a tool to study genetic recombination and gene regulation. In addition, Lederberg invented the replica plating technique, which can be used to isolate and analyse bacterial mutants and monitor antibiotic resistance.

Josephine Cochrane: Socialite turned Inventor
Cochrane was known for hosting many dinner parties at her home with husband William Cochran. Due to frustration with inadequate cleaning of her fine china by their housekeeping staff, she endeavoured to create a machine that could clean her dishes more effectively. Whilst at this time she was successful in producing a prototype, the machine was never put into construction. Following the death of her husband in 1883, Cochrane was left with $1,535.59 and crippling debt. This instigated the commercialisation of her invention and following collaboration with mechanic George Butters, to optimise construction, Cochrane was awarded a patent for her Garis-Cochran Dish-Washing Machine in 1886.

Amy Cuddy: Social Psychologist and Harvard Business School Professor
Along with Susan Fiske and Peter Glick, Cuddy developed the Social Content Model and The Behaviours from Intergroup Assect and Stereotypes Map, which are used to make judgements of individuals within social situations in two-trait dimensions, warmth and competence. This is now a universal framework which can be applied across different cultures, historical and modern-day cases to predict stereotyping and intergroup prejudices. Cuddy also delivered the second-most viewed TED talk of all time, with over 32 million views.

May-Britt Moser: Professor of Neuroscience and Founding Director of Centre for Neural Computation
Moser’s work, along with husband Edvard Moser, focusses on the neural basis of spatial location, including the discovery of grid cells in the entorhinal cortex. Her research group is working to elucidate the functional organisation of the grid-cell circuit and how this contributes to memory formation within the hippocampus. She shares a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Edvard Moser and John O’Keefe, which was awarded in 2014.

Ellie Cosgrave: Lecturer in Urban Innovation at UCL
Cosgrave is a civil engineer by training and works now as a lecturer in urban innovation within STEaPP City Leadership Laboratory, where she is also Deputy Director. This initiative focusses on inclusive engineering, with three different target areas: gender, the smart city and how the creative arts can influence design processes. One aspect of Cosgrave’s research addresses how urban design can be improved to tackle sexual violence in cities. Cosgrave is also a Director at ScienceGrrl, a grassroots organisation which showcases the work of women scientists from diverse backgrounds.

Masayo Takahashi: Ophthalmologist and Project Leader in Laboratory for Retinal Regeneration at RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology
Until recently it was assumed that the adult mammalian retina was incapable of regeneration, however research conducted within Takahashi’s group has shown that new retinal neurons can be generated following damage. Using these insights, Takahashi developed a new approach to produce retinal pigment epithelial cells by reprogramming mature cells back into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). In March of this year, Takahashi’s iPS cell protocol was deployed in the world’s first successful retinal cell transplantation to treat macular degeneration.

Tamara Rogers: Reader in Computational Astrophysics
Newcastle University’s very own Dr Rogers specialises in numerical simulation of hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics of giant exoplanets, also known as ‘hot Jupiters’. Dr Rogers used an unusual observation, that atmospheric winds on planet HAT-P-7b are variable and can move uncharacteristically from eastward to westward, to estimate the strength of the planet’s magnetic field. This ground-breaking research was published in Nature Astronomy and provides a new foundation to explore the formation and evolution of our solar system, as it can be used to elucidate size, formation and migratory paths of far-off planets.

Within the UK, the contribution of women to the total STEM workforce stands at just 21%. However, these examples highlight, that despite women representing a minority within STEM careers, we are continually at the forefront of innovation and discovery. So, just imagine what could be achieved with fair representation of the sexes in STEM.

Categories
Archive Jess Leighton

Newcastle University State of the Art Lectures

By Jess Leighton

Less than 15 years since the first human genome was sequenced in its entirety, the UK Government is deep into the most ambitious genomics project ever- mapping out the DNA sequences of around 70,000 NHS patients with rare diseases and cancers. Newcastle one of only 13 ‘Genomic Medicine Centres’ in the UK, with services based at the Centre for Life covering the North East and North Cumbria. The Project and its impact so far is the topic for the final talk in the Newcastle ‘State of the Art’ lecture series.

The 100,000 Genomes Project aims to bring Whole Genome Sequencing into normal NHS treatment. At present, genetic testing usually just looks at a few sections of a person’s DNA. While testing all of a patients’ genes could find surprise results, the Project aims to make this a normal part of a healthcare, so doctors and nurses know how to explain these results and focus on conditions we may be able to test for and treat. One example is the BRCA gene, which Angelina Jolie was famously found to carry, leading her to choose to have a double mastectomy (breast removal) in light of her risk of breast cancer.

Newcastle has long been a hub for genetic medicine, and since opening in 2000, the Centre for Life has been home to both cutting edge research and engaging exhibits to bring science to children and adults of the North East. The Centre was home to the first cloned human embryo and over 4000 babies have been born thanks to the NHS fertility clinic there. This year the IVF team hit headlines by receiving the first license for mitochondrial replacement therapy or ‘three parent babies’.

The 100,000 Genomes Project is demonstrating a different side of genetics- looking at how rare diseases and cancer come about. For many patients, knowing the DNA changes which caused their illness may be a huge comfort, but it could also lead the way to new therapy. Because the project is the only one of its type in the world, the results are likely to be ground-breaking and potentially kickstart new streams of medical research. All from only a few vials of blood!

Dr Paul Brennan and the 100k team will be speaking in the David Shaw Lecture Theatre from 4-5 pm on Tuesday 21st November.

Categories
Archive Jess Leighton

Newcastle University State of the Art Lectures

By Jess Leighton

The stereotypical neurologist and psychiatrist couldn’t be more different- one looking down a microscope at brains and nerves and the other asking questions about childhood traumas. However the two fields are coming crashing together to ensure patients receive the best possible care.

To ensure trainee psychiatrists are up to date with the biomedical science behind disorders of the brain, the Gatsby Foundation and Wellcome Trust have funded a review of the curriculum, and Professor Wendy Burn (consultant old age psychiatrist) and Dr Gareth Cuttle (Project Manager of the Gatsby/Wellcome Neuroscience Project) will be talking about this project and its progress so far.

Research at Newcastle is at the forefront of this innovative approach, with the Institute of Neuroscience having a research strand on Neurodegenerative, Cerebrovascular and Psychiatric Disorders. The Northern Centre for Mood Disorders has a particular focus on the essence of this project- improving clinical care, cutting edge research, and education of health professionals.

The future of psychiatry- from mood disorders to dementia- must consider both the brain and the mind, and the Gatsby/Wellcome project will lead this unification.

Prof Burn and Dr Cuttle will be speaking on Thursday 16th November from 3-4pm in the David Shaw Lecture Theatre.

Categories
Archive Jess Leighton

Newcastle University State of the Art Lectures

By Jess Leighton

The days of the barber surgeon are well and truly gone in Newcastle; not only do our hospitals provide more surgical services than anywhere else in the North East, but are striving for even better results with ground-breaking research.

Newcastle has long been at the forefront of surgical development, from first single lung transplant in Europe (in 1987, before Google even existed!) to the Freeman Hospital’s Institute of Transplantation- the first in the UK. Newcastle doesn’t limit itself to transplant technology; 2 of only 10 surgeons in the UK who can teach laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery are based here, and the RVI was the first centre in the UK to offer ‘iodine seed localisation’ surgery to allow women with breast cancer to keep as much breast tissue as possible.

Research and training are central to Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals’ services, ensuring patients get the best possible treatments from competent staff. The Newcastle Surgical Training Centre allows training for groups (which can include videolink around the world) right down to one-to-one teaching of highly specialised procedures.

Mani Ragbir is a consultant plastic surgeon with almost 30 years of experience, spanning head and neck cancers, microsurgery and facial palsy. He is the Northern Deanery’s Degree Programme Director for Plastic Surgery, and is actively involved in research. He will go through the current cutting edge technologies being explored in Newcastle, including robotic surgery, stem cell research and tissue engineering.

Mr Ragbir will be speaking on Thursday 9th November from 3-4pm in the David Shaw Lecture Theatre. Find out more about the surgical services in Newcastle here.

Categories
Archive Philippa Rickard

(Not) climbing the academic ladder

By Philippa Rickard

As early-career researchers we navigate uncharted waters in the pursuit of a PhD. Really, that is the whole point of a PhD; to train us to push the boundaries of knowledge, and to ultimately produce a novel piece of work that expands current understanding and provides a stepping stone for further exploration (of a very niche area). All sounds very noble, doesn’t it?

In reality, postgraduate research is a juggling act. We are the whole package: laboratory technician, data analyst, teacher, writer, presenter, administrator, marketer… to name a few. And all of this before our career actually begins – make no mistake, a PhD is the bottom rung of a very rickety academic ladder. What awaits on the next rung is more of the same, yet with (hopefully) somewhat more attractive remuneration.

So, what? What about the next rung, and the rung after that? Where does your ladder lead?

In their 2017 Graduate Survey, Nature found that the future of early-career researchers is uncertain. It is well known that worldwide there are more PhDs produced annually than academic jobs available, but 75% of the 5,700 respondents stated that they will likely pursue an academic career anyway.

The sad reality is that only 3-4% of us will land a permanent academic position in the UK, even less in the US. A fact to which we seem blissfully unaware; nearly 60% of respondents see themselves finding a permanent non-trainee position within 3 years of completion. It is heartening that we remain passionate about what we do and want to continue doing it – that’s why we got ourselves into this in the first place, right? But do we need a reality check? Truthfully, the next rung is as wobbly as the one before.

Despite the insecurity, only 20% of respondents feel less likely to pursue a research career after embarking on a PhD. I am one of those 20%. I don’t have a postdoc plan. I’ve been told I should, but I don’t, and I like it that way. Right now, I am concentrating on the job in hand. Writing up my thesis. After that I will see where I am, how I feel, and what opportunities have come up along the way. Am I just another disillusioned PhD candidate or am I being realistic? After all being a scientist does mean having a healthy relationship with scepticism and evidence. Either way, don’t let me put you off. If you dream of that professorship, then get your head down, work hard and be lucky. But beware of tunnel vision. Gaining a PhD opens so many non-academic doors, there are other options and opportunities out there. Just look through the list of skills you have gained training as a researcher. Don’t be scared to explore them.

Nature articles:
Nature, 550, 429 (2017) doi:10.1038/550429a
Nature, 550, 549-552 (2017) doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a

Categories
Archive Christina Julius

💀🎃 Happy Halloween! 🎃💀

Photo credit: Christina Julius

Categories
Archive Jess Leighton

Newcastle University State of the Art Lectures

By Jess Leighton

Everyone knows communication is important, but receiving training from an Ex-Chief Inspector and FBI Hostage Negotiation Program graduate may seem a little excessive for medical students. However, Kevin Taylor has used his experience – from suicide intervention to managing the 2011 Manchester riots – to establish a career in teaching excellence in communication; definitely vital in medicine.

The second talk in the Newcastle University State of the Art Lecture Series is titled ‘Life and Death Communication Skills: Lessons from hostage negotiations’, and is not as niche as it sounds. Meaningful interactions are not only the basis of good healthcare, but are also key in good research. A huge amount of studies into public health use these skills, and the Institute of Health & Society’s work on good health across the population is a great example.

The IHS works with patients in their research, some of which is directly around effective communication to improve patient care (more information here). As medical research at Newcastle focuses so much on patient impact, involving them in research may become more prevalent, and call for a different set of skills in scientific research – communication.

Mr Taylor will tear open what we think we know about communication – from that key first impression, through the unspoken rules of conversation and down to what you need to know about yourself to be an exceptional communicator. Having applied his vast knowledge around the world, the talk is sure to have something for everyone.

Kevin Taylor will be speaking on Tuesday 31st October from 4-5pm in the David Shaw Lecture Theatre.

Categories
Archive Leonie Schittenhelm

The secret of remembering your passwords

By Leonie Schittenhelm

Forgotten your password yet again? Jamming the keys harder and harder with every try even though you have tried this one three times already? Only to finally (your keyboard breathes a sigh of relief) give in and request a new password. If you have been there, don’t worry – it might just be how tired you were last Thursday.

Researchers at the School of Computing Science at Newcastle University are interested in finding out how a user’s personality traits and other factors influence how they choose passwords as well as the likelihood of successfully remembering them. To do this they asked 100 non-computer science students to create a password, which they had to recall to access a login one week later. The catch? Half of the students had to complete a cognitively exhausting task immediately before thinking up a password. The results were clear: the more mentally exhausted a participant was at time of password creation, the less likely they were to remember it the following week.

But the study, cheekily called ‘Why Johnny Cannot Remember His Password – An Empirical Investigation’, didn’t stop there. They also tested participants for common personally traits, and assessed password strength as well as if this particular password had been used by the student in another context before. Interestingly people who scored high in terms of agreeableness – a personal trait associated with kindness towards other people and compliance with rules – were the most likely to choose a completely new password. This could suggest that the nagging e-mails about cyber security do work, but possibly only on the people already receptive to these kinds of messages.  Male participants were four times more likely to choose a completely new password, but this came at the cost of remembering it the following week, which was only at about 50%. Another surprise? There does not actually seem to be very much difference between the difficulty to remember a weak or a strong password.

So when you choose your next password, remember to do it when well-rested and don’t be afraid to choose something quite long. I personally might keep a little note of it in a safe place – at least until the following week…

Categories
Archive Emma Kampouraki

4 steps towards powerful research outputs

By Emma Kampouraki

Research has been constantly criticised in recent years. It seems rather odd that while increasing efforts have been made to upgrade the regulatory framework as well as the level of research, we are facing more than ever research outputs and publications of low quality or even results of trials that still remain unpublished. However, there are some simple steps that could improve the published research outputs.

1. Reducing publication bias
First and foremost, research results, positive or negative, should be published without reservation. I often hear early-career scientists complaining about being constantly rejected by journals for their negative results that lack significance. Rarely will I find a well-known researcher publishing studies that failed to prove the hypothesis. Whole books have indeed been written about the publication bias.
Equally, protocols that failed because of not easily predictable parameters should also be reported so that similar attempts are avoided. One reason for this is failure to critically assess the prior literature and another is the unspecified statistical assumptions in the analysis of studies. A statistician should be consulted to calculate sample sizes that are required for the target power of study and to set the relevant assumptions from the beginning.
Negative results and unsuccessful protocols should be seen as equally important and we should always allow them to influence our decisions to conduct further research based on previous failed attempts, the same way as positive results urge further study.

2. Maintaining transparency in research publishing
Peer-review is powerful precisely because it is made by peers; scientists that know how to recognise high-quality research and well documented research results. Most journals today publish work that has been peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers. Selecting a journal in which low quality studies with obvious pitfalls have been published is all but good practice.
Moreover, transparency is well maintained when study protocols and data analysis plans are published well in advance. These should be in accordance with the published results when the study is completed and any reasons for deviation from the initial plan should be well justified. Most researchers should be happy to make the complete set of data publicly available, for the purposes of not only transparency but also meta-analyses. Study funders should grant access to detailed clinical data in response to legitimate requests from both researchers and regulators. These data-sharing initiatives are increasing more and more lately and should be supported.

3. Clinical trial results
Randomised clinical trials are a special category, as they are considered the gold standard in biomedical research. In reality, not all questions are answered with a clinical trial that includes an intervention. Observational studies are very powerful especially when they are well designed and bias is reduced. It is required by law that all trial protocols are pre-published at clinicaltrials.gov. Other details such as recruitment goals, data analysis plan and sources of funding are recorded as well. Funders and researchers should stick to their commitment to publish the (positive or negative) results within a timeframe after completion to inform next steps that might already be in progress (e.g. research funding applications for similar study).

4. Systematic reviews
Last but not least, systematic reviews are an incredibly powerful tool to assess the quality of existing evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge. Every large trial should be supported by a systematic review that justify its planning and of course its cost. Otherwise, there is a great risk that the particular study may not add much to the problem and therefore it won’t be cost-effective. Systematic reviews should be reproducible, peer-reviewed and according to the Cochrane standards.

Each and every new generation of researchers should feel the responsibility to maintain the quality of research that the scientific community demands. It is now more essential than ever that we provide powerful and undoubtable evidence simply because we rely a lot on it to make informed decisions in clinical practice and patient management. We are all involved so we should care!