Joseph F. Clark, Ph.D.

Funny story at conference.

I was attending a scientific conference recently which consisted of a series of short talks given by renowned scientists. The session was organized by a leading scientist in the field who invited the speakers and directed them to cover the key scientific subjects of the field to form a theme in the session. According to the agenda each speaker had 20 minutes to present their talks with 15 minutes to present and 5 minutes to answer questions from the audience.

The session was scheduled to proceed like this: Talk number one; 10:00 to 10:20, Talk number two; 10:20 to 10:40 and so on.

It was to conclude at 12:00 noon for lunch.

What the session chair neglected to account for was that he decided to give a 15 minute introductory talk at the beginning of the session. But, there was no time set aside for his introduction. This is his right and quite common, but it is usually given a specific amount of time in the schedule.

Even if forgetting to take this into account during the session most people, in my opinion, should have realized this situation and would adjust the subsequent talks so that everyone got the right amount of time. Some might shorten question time of each of the talks by two or three minutes to make up for the session chair’s introduction and still end on time. I think the most common solution to this little situation is we all go late to lunch. No big deal because sessions running over time is extremely common.

On this particular occasion, the session chair gave his introduction and the first speaker started late. The result was a completely novel resolution. The session chair gave his introduction and then introduced the second speaker who started his 20 minute presentation at 10:13 AM. At 10:20 the session chair cuts off the presenter and allows no questions citing time constraints to make sure everyone else gets the right amount of time. The speaker apologizes for going so long and concludes very quickly and obviously embarrassed. He must have thought he talked 20 minutes as he scurried away. The audience did seem to think that was not quite right, but the next speaker was introduced and took up his 20 minute slot and the session ended on time with each subsequent speaker ending on time. I did over hear the first speaker musing that he felt he should have not been cut off after he realized what happened but the session was long over by then.

I’m sure that the session chair thought he only talked for a minute or two, but the assumption severely short changed the duration of the first speaker’s talk. The moral of the story is all session chairs need to be able to do math and calculate total times. Their introductory remarks may be a waste of time, but those minutes are real.

 Did you ever wonder what it took to develop a treatment for a new disease? Let’s take the relatively new disease family of the creatine deficiency syndromes and talk about that. These three diseases are a family of diseases where the brain lacks creatine and leads to profound mental retardation. Two of the diseases are treated by giving creatine, but one disease is not at all treated if creatine is taken. The two diseases caused by defects in the enzymes synthesizing creatine means the whole body lacks creatine, so it can only be obtained in the diet and with sufficient creatine in the diet the diseases are largely treated.

If the creatine deficiency is caused by a defect in the protein that transports creatine into the brain the body makes and has creatine, but it is not getting into the brain’s cells that need it. So treating with oral supplementation of creatine in the diet does not work. Treating a disease is never simple. Even with the synthesis disorders creatine is a great treatment but there can be a buildup of some toxic metabolites so other complexities come into play.

Concerning the creatine transporter deficiency trying to treat it is very difficult. For a drug to do its job as a creatine transporter deficiency syndrome it needs to cross the blood brain barrier, the membranes of the individual cells, the mitochondrial membrane and eventually interact with mitochondrial creatine kinase and cytosolic creatine kinase.

That means a drug must cross three different biological barriers (membranes) and work on two different enzymes (proteins) to be an effective treatment. Most drugs only have to perform one role but a drug to treat these patients must do multiple things. But it should do those multiple things where they are needed, like in the brain, but be safe in other tissues. Designing this new drug will take a lot of work and will need to be thoroughly tested.

Most people, most doctors, and many scientists do not realize how hard it is to design, test and distribute a new drug. It takes time and it takes dedicated people to be successful at this.

So, that is the bad news. The good news is that we have assembled; chemists, biochemists, neuroscientists, neurologists, and experienced drug developers to design and tests drugs to treat the creatine transporter deficiency. As said in previous blogs, we already developed the definitive animals with the disease needed to validate the drugs and we are making progress on treatments. If you have a family member or patient with one of the creatine deficiency syndromes, especially the creatine transporter deficiency, please join our facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/home.php?sk=group_127389967322193&ap=1) where we will keep people apprised of our latest research and development.

Creatine transporter deficiency syndromes can cause a profound form of mental retardation due to a lack of creatine in the brain. There are up to 80,000 patients with one of these three diseases causing creatine deficiency in the brain. There are successful treatments for 2 of the 3 creatine deficiency disorders with a lot of work ongoing to develop treatments for the third cause of the disorder.

Creatine supplementation in the diet is a highly successful therapy for the two creatine synthesis disorders. So if the body cannot make sufficient creatine it still uses creatine from the diet if enough is eaten. The two creatine synthesis disorders are called GAMT and AGAT.

The third cause for creatine deficiency in the brain is because of a mutation in the protein that transports creatine into the brain. The patients with the creatine transporter deficiency are all profoundly mentally retarded males as the disease is an x-linked disorder. Females are carriers of the disorder and can be mildly affected.

Creatine is lacking in the brains of patients with the transporter deficiency and due to a lack of functional protein creatine in the diet is not a successful treatment option. Several scientists, physicians and families have tried dietary supplements, including precursors of creatine synthesis, but with no real benefit because there is poor to little evidence that the brain makes creatine. What is needed is a method to get creatine into the brain or a reasonable facsimile of creatine in.

What kind of drug is a reasonable facsimile of creatine? Well the answer at this time is we do not know. We cannot randomly start giving creatine like compounds to patients. Do not despair however because there is an ideal way to screen compounds as possible treatments for patients with creatine transporter deficiency. That is a mouse with the disease has been made by researchers in Cincinnati. See http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016187 for more information.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016187

This is great news because a new drug would never be approved by the FDA if it was not tested and shown to be safe and effective in an animal before being tested in humans. If no animal had the disease, then no proof of effectiveness could be demonstrated. Now with this mouse with the disease new drugs can be tested as treatments for the creatine deficiency patients.

Please be assured that the scientists and researchers in Cincinnati are testing drugs on these mice and trying to make the retarded mice smarter. Cincinnati is where the first patients with creatine transporter deficiency were found so there is a long history of quality research and knowledge concerning creatine deficiencies being applied to the problem of treating patients with creatine transporter deficiency. Some of the most experienced researchers concerning creatine and creatine deficiencies are in Cincinnati working hard to treat these patients (http://www.amazon.com/Creatine-Phosphate-Scientific-Clinical-Perspectives/dp/0121863409/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299893026&sr=8-1).

Since the emotionally traumatic events of my thesis and thesis defense, requiring a re-write, it has become very clear to me that such things are extremely common. A thesis, journal articles and books all get proofread and are re-written routinely. My minor re-write and proving one assumption seemed to me at the time as a failure. But it is really part of the rite of passage for many Ph.D. theses. My committee members and Dr. Myer were not being mean. They had an opinion and a duty to ensure that the thesis produced was of a high quality and caliber consistent with an advanced degree. Subsequently, I believe that episode has also made me sympathetic and supportive to students when I have had to engage in similar requests for improving theses or strengthening a thesis defense.

When my degree was finally approved, I called Ann, called my parents and called my grandparents. I was the first doctorate in my family. My departure date for Paris was unchanged.

Renee would meet me at the airport at 8:00 A.M., as I was taking a redeye to Paris. She had arranged temporary accommodations for me and would take me directly to the lab upon my arrival and to my accommodations later that day.

Things were winding down for me in Lansing. My thesis was on the books and I was officially Dr. Clark. The flight to Paris was scheduled; my stuff was either shipped to France, in storage, with Ann or coming with me on the flight. Dr. Dillon had scheduled a celebratory lunch for just him and me two days before my flight. The day before my flight, I was spending with Ann as our last hours together were dwindling. I met Dr. Dillon at the restaurant with a list of notes and info for him regarding things in the lab. I also had a list of last-minute errands for me to finish after lunch. We went to my favorite Mexican restaurant, ‘El Azteco’. I ordered my usual taco salad, extra salsa and a beer. El Azteco was a great student hangout and had quickly become my regular restaurant in Lansing. The waiters and waitresses were generally college students and often very entertaining. Whenever you attended a student play or performance in the park you would recognize more than one of the wait-staff performing up on the stage. All the best performing arts students waited tables at El Azteco.

Dr. Dillon and I chatted about plans for papers and my research in France. He re-emphasized that I could call him to ask for help, recommendations or input. It was a very pleasant lunch. I gave him the information I had concerning the lab, my lab books and research protocols. It was important that future employees be able to reproduce the research I did so that the lab could continue without me. The check came and he paid for it. I offered to help but he politely refused.

When we stood up to leave and shook hands, I said, “Good-bye and thanks, Pat.”

The words came out of my mouth clumsily, not because I was choked up, but because I had called him by his first name. Dr. Patrick Dillon smiled, as he knew it was the first time I had done so and that was part of being a successful Ph.D. I had earned the right to call Dr. Dillon, Pat. During the whole meal I never called him by name, as I was too nervous to exercise that right and still felt like his student. But I had resolved to call him Pat before I left, and did just that. I would never need to call him Dr. Dillon again. I am now a peer and part of the relatively exclusive club of those who have earned the right to be called, “Doctor.” I do not request that my own students or employees call me, Dr. Clark, however. I ask them right away to call me Joe. I believe that familiarity like this breeds trust, whereas some people keep the Dr. title because they feel that familiarity, such as using a first name, breeds contempt. I almost never introduce myself as or call myself Dr. Clark. On one occasion some family members were present when a student asked me a scientific question and I launched into a student-appropriate answer on enzymes and biochemistry. When I was finished my cousin said she was impressed—she had never seen the “Dr. Clark” side of me in action. Some people have called me Dr. Joe and some kids have called me Dr. Silly. That familiarity I think is thoroughly enjoyable and something that I actively embrace with all my colleagues and their children.

There were two big days pending for Ann and me. One was of course the flight to Paris, when we would be separated. But the one before that was a requisite step and that was my Ph.D. defense papers. The big stack of handwritten pages had been converted to electronic text with Ann’s help, complete with figures and data all assembled into a double-spaced textbook of 164 pages. What needed to be done was the ceremonial burning of all the different drafts of my thesis. On a cold January evening in Michigan Ann and I burned the drafts of my thesis. Some of the handwritten pages brought back memories of the work we put into the thesis. Many of the annotated pages from Pat Dillon started long conversations about my thesis with Dr. Dillon echoing in my head. There was a lot of paper and we would add one large stack after another. Some of the paper produced ash that flew up into the night sky glowing like a million lightning bugs released from the confines of the burning paper. It gave me a release and a sense of accomplishment that those pages served a purpose and now I was letting them go.

Ann and I had a nice quiet dinner at home on my very last day in the USA. It was somber, but we also had to discuss final arrangements for our temporary time apart. It should only be about 6 months before I would get things ready for Ann to follow me to Paris. The next morning she drove me to the airport in silence, with tears in her eyes. I tried to reassure her that we would be together soon, but it seemed like a lifetime right now. Ann and I sat very close to each other in the airport, alternating between embracing and holding hands in silence. Finally the boarding of my flight was announced and it was time to go. I kept thinking of those three main concerns I had about my year in Paris. I wanted to be successful in the research, to maintain my relationship with Ann, and to be there if my family needed me. As Ann and I embraced, I still couldn’t stop thinking about them.

We kissed, then I waved goodbye as I walked towards the plane that would take me away. As I turned to wave one last time, she was crying openly now, her left hand wiping tears and her right hand raised above her head waving. Little did I realize that two of my three biggest fears about this trip would come to pass.

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.

So goes the life of a scientist, because such succinct conclusions are not uncommon. I have since known several other Ph.D. thesis conclusions requiring years of work to arrive at a simple answer. One such student spent years studying the size of a part of a protein, called the catalytic cleft. The catalytic cleft is kind of like the mouth on pacman^tm. He discovered the size to be 1.8 angstroms in his protein. So, years of work produced the result of “almost 2.” Another woman was studying what genes were needed to support life in a kind of worm. She found that the worm could survive with 410 genes. Again, years of work discovering that the answer is 410. But for anyone doing or interested in doing Ph.D. caliber research, these results are not a disappointment. We can use such data to do other research and make other discoveries. For example, the 410 genes that were required for life in that worm may be important for other organisms including people. My “yes, maybe” answer has been useful to myself and other researchers studying creatine, creatine kinase and metabolism in many tissues. My recent research in the brain has been able to utilize information that was collected during my Ph.D. research. So those old data do not go bad and may be useful for future generations of scientists.

Between when I submitted my thesis and my thesis defense I had two weeks. During those two weeks I prepared my talk, which would be a longer and more complete version of the talk I gave to Bill Jacobus’ group. I also had to start assembling and packing stuff to ship to France as well as what I would be bringing on the plane. Several boxes would be taking a slow boat to Paris and a couple of suitcases were coming with me on the flight. Everything else was going into storage or staying with Ann. When Ann and I moved in together, I had put some of my things in storage and more of my clothes and other possessions would be going into storage now. It was both exciting and sad to be preparing to move to Paris, knowing it meant being separated from Ann. Ann offered to take the day off to attend the thesis defense and support me and I thought about it a lot. I asked her to not attend in the end because I would be too self-conscious with her in the room. She understood and I promised to call her as soon as it was over.

The two weeks before the defense flew by. I had so much to do it seemed I was always on the run. The inexorable march of time had brought me to a big benchmark of my professional career. It was the day of my thesis defense. My presentation was ready, the thesis committee had their copies of the thesis and there was a room full of students, faculty and staff waiting for me. The plan was for me to give a 45 to 50 minute presentation of my research, followed by about 10 to 15 minutes of public questions. I gave my talk and took questions from the general audience. The questions from the general audience were pertinent and polite, easy to field.

The general audience walked out and now the hard part of the thesis defense began. This is where the individual committee members asked questions from their review of the written thesis. The questioning started with Ron Myer. He got straight to the point. Dr. Myer had found an assumption that I made concerning some of my mathematical calculations. He said that the assumption was logical, but that no one had used that assumption when doing similar experiments without testing to see if it was a valid assumption. Other than testing it in the lab I could also prove it mathematically. I understood what he was saying, but could not understand why he didn’t see that the assumption I made was logical and “had” to be correct. The simple fact was that it was an issue I was not ready to defend because it would take several hours of work to prove the concept. I was stuck and felt I could not rebut the comment. It was hard to explain to the other committee members, but it was apparent that I would not be able to defend against Dr. Myer’s question. Because I had made an assumption and proved the assumption with math on another issue (see Chapter 12), it was felt that I should have done the same here.

We went on to the questions of the other members, which were generally straightforward. The conclusion of my thesis defense was that I needed to validate my mathematical assumption to pass. Three of my committee members felt that it was not necessary to do the re-write, but Dr. Myer was able to convince one other committee member and I needed four out of five members to sign off on the thesis. A re-write was needed. I needed to do more work to obtain my Ph.D. This is called a re-write and even though it is fairly common it was quite a disappointment for me.

 

Chapter 19. Leaving on a Jet Plane – This is the last Chapter people in 4 installments.

I had three major fears concerning my postdoc in Paris. Fear number 1 was that a long-distance relationship between myself and Ann would not survive. Since she was planning to join me in 6 months or so, I was hoping that this would be a manageable concern. My second fear was that some family emergency might occur while I was so far away, and I would not make it back in time for it. I would be 3000 miles from home and anything could happen. As the most scientifically trained and medically aware family member, I felt that it was important for me to aid the family in medical emergencies. This would not be possible while I was in Europe. My last worry was that my research might not work or that my time there would not be professionally productive. If I was to discover that I could not do the research that Renee and I wanted to do, or if something went wrong, it could be very hard to get a second or replacement postdoc. I tried to mitigate the professional concerns because Bill Jacobus was very supportive of a future post doc, and it might be feasible to return earlier if necessary. Some people asked me if I was worried about not liking being abroad. I said that for one year I felt I could put up with anything, so no, I was not worried about likes or dislikes. I had even been capable of having fun at car accidents, so enjoying my time abroad was not a big concern.

At the end of my Ph.D. studies I was largely broke and in debt. I had huge student loans that would take years to repay and very little cash in the bank, no assets, no stocks, no house and needed to sell my car to have some spending money when I moved to Paris. However, I wanted to get engaged to Ann. While I have to admit I was not as romantic as I might have been about it, I casually told her one day what I wanted to do. We would get engaged in Paris and plan to be married about a year after returning to Toledo. I even suggested that we could consider the anniversary of our first date, December 11, as a future wedding date. While I did not say so, I would “officially” ask her (on bended knee) to marry me. My aim in making the plan for an engagement was purely pragmatic in that I had no ring to give now and no resources to get one. So it was a promise of a ring. She said yes and we did not talk about it again.

A hard copy of my thesis was distributed to 5 distinguished faculty members in Michigan State, also known as a thesis committee. These five people were to read my thesis, make comments on it, listen to me present it, and grill me with questions to make sure I fully understood what I had written. This process was called defending the thesis and is an integral part of the process of obtaining a Ph.D. Dr. Dillon and I had read, re-read, and rewritten my thesis over several weeks if not months. Now it was with the thesis committee and my thesis defense date was set. The date for moving to France was also set. With luck I would be getting on a plane on January 18^th. But I couldn’t think about that — I had to focus on my next big day; the thesis defense.

The conclusions in my Ph.D. thesis were fairly simply stated. In it, the question that was asked is, are creatine kinase kinetics in pure solution similar to what is seen in the living tissue? The answer is “yes, maybe.” However, in my thesis I said that a little differently. A quote from my thesis:, “Solution kinetics may accurately reflect the kinetics occurring in the tissue only if the purification procedure has not caused the enzyme to be damaged or altered such that the kinetics are changed.” So after years of work and hours and hours of research the 164-page thesis was concluded with a qualified “yes.” A succinct answer in a thesis is nice, but it is a sobering thought that all that effort is distilled down to a few words.

 I am very proud to be part of the University of Cincinnati’s new Homeland Security & Emergency Management certificate program, which will launch in June 2011. That is this year folks. 

 The certificate program will be five courses, out of seven courses offered. It is taught by an all star cast of faculty; I humbly include myself in those ranks, dedicated to training America’s future in emergency management. Registration should soon be announced – go to www.uc.edu/cas/firescience – graduate certificate, for more information.  

 Those considering the program may also attend the first day of each of the seven classes in 2011 without charge, for free Continuing Education.  The dates of each class are posted on above web site.  

 The program is part of the distance learning initiative for the University of Cincinnati with all the on line classes.  Students have access to the incredible ohiolink literature site to get access to the latest cutting edge literature that is normally used by techno-weenies like me. Getting unlimited access to ohiolink for one year is worth the cost of admission. Seriously though, go to http://www.ohiolink.edu/ to see all the books and articles you can get access to.

 Along with ohiolink the Homeland Security certificate program will teach the student all he or she will need to be able to move up the ranks of the EMS, Fire, Police, FBI, National Security agencies and be prepared to make command and system decisions. Yours truly will be teaching a section on evidence based decision making called, “Integrated Approach to Planning & Response for Medical Management of Terrorism and Large-Scale Incidents.” That is how to read the latest literature, planning and policies as well as apply it to your work and your system when preparing for terrorist or mass causality events.

 The program is geared to relatively experienced personnel who have worked in the trenches for a few years and want a mechanism for advancement. You do not need to have an advanced degree nor is it necessary to take the graduate school admissions tests (GRE or similar).

As far as I’m concerned if you have any aspirations for a future in emergency services of any sort, seeing my face on a podcast should be in your future.

The physiology party committee (me, Dave, Vivian and Nancy), started to accumulate a list of possible gifts and awards. The awards would just be simple paper certificates with gilded borders and the faculty names and awards printed on them. Producing something funny, but appropriate, for about 20 people, took a lot of thought and work. Some people we had lots of material on, and for some we were stressed to find any dirt. We added some post docs and staff to our hit list because we had good material or jokes for them. I did the shopping for some of the joke gifts and got the paper for the awards. Slowly but surely we accumulated ideas for every faculty member. We then needed to organize the order and delivery and also who would do the honors. I somehow got roped into doing the whole skit because I was the closest to graduating and would be leaving for Paris soon. I guess that meant if I offended anyone I would be 3000 miles away to avoid reprisals. Hopefully that would not be an issue.

The Christmas party was a very noisy affair and I was hoping that everyone would forget and that I would not have to give out the awards. But Nancy and Vivian got everyone quiet and together in one room for my “show” to go on.

The first award was “Miss Congeniality,” for the hostess of the Christmas party, Birget Zipser.

“Remember to be nice to the hostess because you may be eating something she made,” I said.

The next award was the “Most Beautiful” award to Tim Denerell, for his beautiful equation. The award had his name and the equation proudly and neatly printed above it.

“Tim truly has a sentimental streak. At his Ph.D. thesis dissertation he started his talk by introducing his mother and saying, ‘She was at my first day of school and I wanted her to come to my last.’”

The “Most Colorful” award went to Dr. Dillon.

“Not because of his colorful personality, or his vibrant use of the English language, but because of his choice of shirts and ties.”

Dr. Dillon would think nothing of wearing a purple polo shirt with a pink tie.

The “Most Creative” award went to Dr. Kaiser, for her creative naming of her pets. “As a pet owner with names like Miss Baby Mittens to my credit, though not deserving of the credit, I appreciate good pet names. But with her dog’s names including unique monikers like ‘Riffraff,’ ‘Squirty,’ and ‘Pituy’, she demonstrates her creativity. This creativity is also reflected in her innovative experiments.”

The “Einstein” award was given to Dr. Krier. Not because of his great ideas or expansive mind, but because of the similar hairstyles. On the award were two pictures—of Dr. Krier and Albert Einstein—with puffy and flyaway hair that was essentially identical.

To Dr. Adams we gave a bucket of sand.

“Look—this bucket of sand is to symbolize a dry sense of humor.” I said.

No one laughed. The joke was really bad.

I feigned frustration at the lack of response and said, “Ok, well all I can say is that this empty bucket now is for Dr. Jump.”

That got a big laugh from the audience. Dr. Jump was not there, so he did not laugh. He really didn’t have much of a sense of humor so everyone got the empty bucket concept.

The rest of the evening went well and got reasonable laughs with minimal offense taken by anyone. I was pleased that people seemed to get most of the jokes and that we did get some good “‘dirt” on all of the faculty as well as a lot of the senior staff. Several people told me that the empty bucket gag was quite funny and that the Dr. Adams setup was perfect, even complimenting me on faking being frustrated at the joke appearing to bomb.

“I’m glad my humor was appreciated. Should I look into doing standup as a career?”

“No, keep your day job.”

I agreed. I was having too much fun doing science to think about quitting.

On the day of the competition, Ann was not in the audience. She could not bear to watch. I understood completely, and promised to call as soon as I was finished. I tried to make it clear that the longer it took me to call the better, because it would mean I was still “alive” in the double elimination tournament. I won the first two matches I fought on points.

My third match I lost to a guy who got lots of points with quick little jabs that I felt could never make contact or be of significance, but he was awarded points for them. His style was mostly like a street fighter throwing a fast and furious attack, but with little defense. I made lots of scores being more of a tactician, but I did not score as quickly as he did. I wondered to myself if he would have been able to stand up to a mugger in the city streets as I did in Omaha. Nonetheless I lost my first match to a very fast street fighter.

Probably because I was still mad and agitated from this loss, my fourth match was a breeze to win. I didn’t get winded or fatigued at all and did a blaze of misdirection kicks and jab kicks to rack up points and take an easy win. I had very little time after this match before my next one.

My fifth match was against one of the tournament favorites. He was small and powerful and very fast. His forte was spinning kicks, which I tended to try to get out of the way of and then push him to get him off balance. That defense did not work very well against an experienced tournament fighter. But at least it helped him miss and I tried to use the opportunity after his miss to score points. He executed a left-footed roundhouse kick that was close and I pushed his leg with the kick to make him spin faster. This time my defense worked, and I lunged in with a solid punch to the face. However, he spun so far I hit him in the back of the head. I tried to pull back on the punch, but made contact with the nape of his neck, which is against the tournament rules. I was immediately disqualified for an illegal and dangerous hit. Fortunately he was all right and went on to win the tournament. The hit was actually a powerful one and it was the first time I made direct and potentially damaging contact with any person I sparred with. I was disturbed by the idea that my hit could possibly have caused a brain or spinal cord injury. It was this sobering thought that ran through my mind as the referee disqualified me. I called Ann and told her I placed 4^th in the tournament. The tournament was enjoyable, and training for it was a valuable experience. I learned that I most definitely did not have the fighter’s killer instinct and even in a mild and well-protected karate competition like this one, I was not cut out to be going through the motions of hitting or hurting someone.

The department of physiology had a Christmas party every year, and the senior graduate students traditionally presented a humorous skit of some kind at this party. It was my last holiday season at Michigan State, so 3 other graduate students and I were “volunteered” to organize the entertainment. We decided to give joke awards and gifts to all the faculty members. We got the complete list of faculty and then tried to come up with a funny but not too offensive awards or gifts to give everyone. All the graduate students were polled (with promises of secrecy) to get ideas for joke awards and gifts. Part of the reason only the senior graduate students did the entertainment was that often junior graduate students would be too scared or naïve to play jokes on the faculty. Only with age and the cynicism of a senior graduate student did the really funny stuff come out. By this point the older students had started to realize that their professors did not know everything, and some even had a sense of humor, though not all, as you shall see.