Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY
This summer I had the opportunity to work at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, at Northwell Health, in Manhasset, N.Y. It was an incredible experience and I am grateful to the Class of 1972. The Feinstein Institutes are a set of research laboratories that are not directly linked to any universities or academic institutions, but they are associated with the Norwell Health system, which allows for many unique opportunities for translational studies and clinical trials and facilitates a culture of collaboration.
During my time as an intern, I was able to witness this collaboration in action. For example, I attended weekly laboratory meetings during which all of the scientists, medical doctors, Ph.D.’s, post-doctoral fellows, Ph.D. students, and research assistants in the laboratory group would come together to listen to and talk about one particular ongoing project. This meant that each week one of the current researchers would give a presentation of their work and anyone else could make a comment or ask a question at any time. Even the young and relatively inexperienced interns, such as I, were encouraged to participate. The conversation would continue until some sort of conclusion was reached which could last anywhere from one minute to an hour. This format allowed for the development and refinement of the project and the communication skills of the presenter that often led to new experiment ideas. I distinctly remember multiple laboratory meetings when the principle investigator exclaimed, “that’s what you should do for your next experiment; run a few short tests just to see if it works. Then let me know how it goes.” This was in response to another researcher’s comment or question that had not been addressed yet. Or if someone had described an insightful way of interpreting a graph that helped illuminate the big picture he’d exclaim, “That’s it! That’s your story. That’s the message you are trying to get across.” This was exciting to witness because it is when I realized that I was participating in cutting edge work and working towards the Feinstein Institutes’ goal to produce knowledge to cure disease and improve patient lives.
I had been introduced to the concept of a presenting a story in science previously, but I did not truly understand it until this summer. In my research classes in high school I thought a research story was some broad societal consequence that inspired my small project and would allow me to apply the results to a real-world problem—and to be fair that is a portion of the story—but that is not all there is to it. The story is the actual science, and the tricky part is deciding exactly how to tell the story through the presentation, explanation, and consequences of the data and methods.
I learned even more about producing a scientific story when I had the opportunity to work on my own research project, which was a small piece of a larger project my mentor was working on, which was another small piece of the work of the entire laboratory. My project took an interdisciplinary approach to understanding obesity through the combination of neuroscience, immunology, biochemistry, and biotechnology. I was trying to understand the role the vagus nerve, a part of the autonomic nervous system, plays in the regulation of feeding behavior in order to better understand the body’s regulation of body weight. This understanding will hopefully lead to a better understanding of how this system is disrupted during obesity and lead to more effective treatment options for obesity in the future.
It was interesting to participate in this project because it allowed me to see the direction biological research is going. My mentor explained that many of the diseases caused by known pathogens have already been cured or addressed, like the use of antibiotics for bacterial infections. However, the new challenge is the problems posed by inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune disorders, crone’s disease, and sepsis. These new challenges are more complicated than a typical invasion of a host and the resulting inflammatory response because these diseases involve a dysregulation of the immune system that must be reset in some way. This is why my laboratory’s interdisciplinary approach that combines neuroscience and biotechnology with immunology and metabolism is so exciting.
This summer I not only learned about the incredible scientific discoveries being made, but I also learned what it is like in the daily life of researchers who are constantly planning, performing or analyzing experiments. I also realized that when I am looking for future placements, I will look for a laboratory with a culture of hard work combined with light-hearted conversation and collaboration. This relaxed environment allowed me to feel comfortable asking questions and admitting when I made a mistake.
Accepting the inevitability of making mistakes was challenging at first, but one experience this summer put this idea in perspective. During a talk presented by a guest lecturer, one of my colleagues leaned over and whispered to me, “I wonder how many experiments that person had to do in order to produce that high quality of a picture?” I was originally struck by the possibility that there were problems producing that image as I had just accepted it as a successful experiment, but then I thought back to my many attempts to learn an advanced technique or the difficulties some other members of my lab were having producing a different kind of high-quality image, and I realized that there are often many failed experiments before a reasonable result is reached. This may seem daunting, but as my mentor explained, “If you design an experiment properly, a negative result will tell you as much as a positive result,” which means you rarely actually fail. For example, if the question asked was whether or not stimulation of a nerve produced a specific signal when it was already known that something else downstream happened in another location as a result of that stimulation. If the nerve did respond to the stimulation that would support the idea that the downstream effect was induced by a neural message. If the nerve did not respond this would suggest that the downstream effect was set off by some other signaling process. Both results would give the researcher information to work with.
The incredible insight of my mentor and his willingness to explain that concept to me reflects the culture that I found compelling about my time at the Feinstein Institutes. It solidified my desire to go into the biological research field and it opened my eyes to the varied and intricate ways questions are being asked and problems that are being addressed. My time this summer has inspired me to pursue undergraduate research on campus at Williams and has exposed me to the ways academic research discoveries are brought to the market in order to help real people. I would like to express once again my greatest thanks to the Class of 1972 and the ’68 Center for Career Exploration who helped make this experience possible.