I called Ann and broke the bad news to her. I explained that it would not likely change my departure date for France, but the need to do the rewrite would make the next couple of weeks quite pressured and decrease our free time together. Fortunately a repeat of the oral thesis defense was not needed.

When I was rewriting my thesis and adding the new proof to it, I also toned down my compartmentation conclusions. I did this because I had received an annotated copy of the thesis from Dr. Myer and his written annotations were skeptical of some of the discussion and conclusions. I believe that I still have this annotated thesis. So in order to minimize further conflict or defense of the thesis, I removed or changed all contentious references and discussion points to be more consistent with Dr. Myer’s point of view. I removed several sections and paragraphs that I felt were valid, justifiable and defensible, but I did not want to fight about them. My goal was a Ph.D. and soap-boxing the compartmentation issue at the possible expense or delay of my thesis was not in my best interests. So I cut and re-wrote sections where the annotations were less than supportive.

Dr. Dillon and I were finished with the mathematical proof in only a couple of hours. I wrote up the methods for the proof over the next couple of days and re-calculated my data and incorporated other changes requested by the committee. It turned out that what was logical to me was not entirely logical to others in the field. I had done multiple proofs in my thesis and this was yet one more. I used and published the proof in a paper a few years later and now it is relatively common to make that assumption[1]. It was a stressful period but I survived, Ann survived, Dr. Dillon survived and I received my Ph.D.

The version of my thesis that was signed off on by my thesis committee and submitted to the university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. was not the scientific statement I had wanted. But, it was still the degree I wanted. I kept several copies of the draft version that supported the compartmentation argument, which I believed in, but had abandoned in order to safely secure my Ph.D. Making these changes to my thesis was a compromise, but I don’t think it was selling out. I had learned the same lesson many times in my graduate career: the goal is the degree of Ph.D.—anything extra is gravy and anything less is failure. I did not compromise my degree and have gone on to prove many points that I think are important, with regard to creatine and creatine kinase function in arteries and the brain. In many ways my research has added to our understanding of metabolism and diseases. These accomplishments were made regardless of what my Ph.D. thesis said. The key was to play the game in the right way and not end up an ABD person, with a masters but no Ph.D.

Obtaining a Ph.D. is a long, arduous and draining task composed of many small steps. While I felt a lot of things on the day I received my Ph.D.; including relief, a sense of accomplishment, and happy, what I really recall is the apprehension because I still did not know all the answers. It seemed that all the Ph.D. and MD faculty members I had been dealing with all these years knew so much and that I did not. I felt I still did not know enough to have a Ph.D. I was waiting for an infusion of knowledge that did not come and I guess it never will. Nearly 20 years after receiving a Ph.D., I definitely do not know all the answers and I do not see myself as knowing all the things that I perceived my mentors to have known. But maybe that was my perception. On reflection and having since talked to them about such things, it is obvious that they did not steer me wrong and yet they did not know everything. It seems that with experience comes confidence and that confidence and experience produces trust on the part of wide-eyed students who seek knowledge. While I still hope that I will get a brain infusion of all the knowledge I felt that my mentors had, I realize that there is no sudden epiphany of science. It takes many years of experience and open-mindedness to be able to act with confidence and to push the boundaries of human knowledge. As Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “If we knew what we were doing; it would not be research.” So, because I still do not know what I am doing, I will continue to call it research.

[1] J.F. Clark, and P.F. Dillon. Phosphocreatine and Creatine Kinase in Energetic Metabolism of the Porcine Carotid Artery. Journal of Vascular Research, 32; 24-30, 1995.