Joseph F. Clark, Ph.D.

I was focused on thesis writing, but there were other things I needed to do to secure my career track. I had to prepare for what I would be doing after my postdoc in France. Trying to line up a job over a year in advance is difficult at best. I needed to consider the productivity of my future boss, the research he/she was doing now and likely to be doing in the future, plus Ann’s wishes to be within driving distance of her parents. That limited us to Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. It was no use looking at advertisements for job openings, because no one would hold a job for that long. So I sent requests to carefully targeted people, telling them my plans and asking if they thought a position with them might be possible in the future. Most of the responses were generic “check with me later’s, but I did get some interested responses. I was invited to Toledo to talk about my current research, my research plans in Paris and possibilities for a post doc upon my return from Paris. The request came from William Jacobus, a very well known scientist in NMR and creatine kinase. He was also the new department chair in the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. Toledo was good because it was close to Ann’s parents. Dr. Jacobus was good because he had similar research interests to mine, and as a department chair he might be in a position to ensure a job for me when I returned from a year in Paris.

When I phoned him Dr. Jacobus asked me to call him Bill, to bring some of my data with me and to prepare a seminar presentation of my work to be given to his department. I planned to drive down early in the morning, go through the interview, presentations and data discussions and drive back that evening. Bill offered to put me up in a hotel overnight, but I was hoping to demonstrate to Ann that one could go back and forth in one day, which is what she wanted to be able to do to visit her parents.

I prepared a slide show for the big day. It was going to be an all-day job interview. I really wanted to impress Bill and his team and worked hard to make a good impression. Bill and Renee were also good friends and colleagues, so it was important to make Renee aware of this prospect, and assure her that it would not detract from what I would be doing with her. Everyone in the world of creatine research seemed to be very friendly and almost like a family.

It was an easy drive to Toledo from Lansing, and a familiar one, because it was a small part of the route I took when driving to and from New York. I only drove via Canada that one time. It was easy to find the Medical College of Ohio at Toledo and Bill’s office. When I entered the office his assistant said that he was expecting me. I think I felt the room shake as Bill walked in. Bill Jacobus was a tall, well-built man and at about 6’4’’ he was an imposing figure. His scientific pedigree was impressive too, because his former Ph.D. supervisor was Lehninger. The name Lehninger is now more than a proper name—it is a noun as well. Rarely do scientists say “Dr. Lehninger” or “Albert L. Lehninger.” This is because in biochemistry, one of the definitive textbooks in the field is the Lehninger text Biochemistry (Worth Publishers, Inc., New York). Being an intellectual progeny of someone of Lehninger’s stature was evidence of a solid scientific pedigree.

Bill gripped my hand firmly and shook it vigorously as he pulled me into his office. The office had large 24” by 36” photos in vivid color, from his travels all over the world. When I commented on them Bill said that he took them himself, and told me where each was taken.

Bill asked me about my research and my results. Bill was a fan of the compartmentation hypothesis and realized that my research seemed to be supporting that hypothesis. He asked me what Ron Myer thought of it and I told him that Ron was less than supportive. I was becoming used to calling these doctors and professors by their first names. It seemed that the closer I got to receiving my doctorate, the less mystifying these figures became and the easier it was to be on a first-name basis with them.

Bill was entertained to see that research coming from Ron’s institution seemed to be supporting compartmentation and that this work was in vascular smooth muscle – arteries. The artery work on compartmentation was not unique for scientists studying arteries, but the fact that it involved creatine kinase research like Ron’s and that it was coming from Michigan State University was something that Bill relished. I watched Bill’s face as he seemed to process this information and file it for use later. It was reminiscent of when I worked with my father and he would look at a new tool and decide to buy it for some carpentry project. Bill was acquiring information to be used as a tool in his research. Our discussion of my data and thesis was animated and enjoyable. It was unclear if Bill was asking me questions to probe my knowledge or genuinely interested in what I had to say. I think he really was interested in my opinion, and I enjoyed the process of the discussion. It was not at all like a job interview.

We got onto the topic of his own research and he became even more animated. He was interested in novel aspects of the compartmentation of energy metabolism in muscle, including creatine as well as other metabolites and enzymes. While what he was saying was off line to what I had been doing, it was also quite parallel. I immediately saw the implications of what he was proposing and could see how my skill sets could be used to answer such a clever scientific question. Bill sensed my piqued interest and we both warmed to the ideas being discussed that day. The project would have me working on mitochondrial enzymes called hexokinase, which worked like creatine kinase. These two enzymes were both in the mitochondria, which are the structures in the cell that make most of the cell’s energy, and both used some of the same molecules in their reactions. The project was to see what conditions controlled the enzyme’s activity. I found myself actively involved in making suggestions as to possible experiments and enhancements of his ideas, which was a lot of fun. I had been so focused on my thesis work, that it was refreshing and invigorating to be discussing other experiments in this way.

Bill gave me a tour of his research lab and I talked to some of the people working for him. Bill had not been here long, so some things were still ramping up. It was clear to me that there were background experiments that needed to be performed before getting to the project that Bill and I had discussed. This would enable me to do my post doc in France and come back here to work with Bill and help out with his projects. My excitement grew because it all seemed to be falling into place. The plan would be to finish my Ph.D. in December, move to Paris in January, help Ann move to Paris in June, and then both move to Toledo in January of the following year. The ultimate plan seemed obvious; we would be married shortly after that. At that moment I realized I needed to propose to Ann, but she was miles away and I had no money for an engagement ring. The plan that formed in my head was to promise to buy her a ring in Paris after I had saved up some money. I would be making a pretty good salary and could eventually afford a nice ring so we could get engaged in Paris. It was all very clear to me.

 Chapter 16. My Data Go Primetime

 After deciding to do a one-year postdoc in Paris, I needed to start planning for the job after that back in the USA. It would be easier to apply for and interview for a job in the USA while still in the USA. I didn’t want to start applying for my next position from Europe. I needed to meet people and talk to them face-to-face, so I started that job hunt well in advance of my departure for Paris. I was in fact planning two different jobs at one time that were going to occur in tandem. A good way to get people interested in hiring you to do scientific research is to publish your research and make public your data. So it was undoubtedly time for my data to be widely disseminated to the whole scientific community.

Between finishing my Ph.D. and taking French lessons I was extremely busy. I was so busy I longed to have nothing to do. I overheard some students, high school students or young college students, one day, and they were talking about “fighting boredom” as if it was a big problem. They had nothing to do, so they would hang out and “fight boredom” until it was time to go home. I was envious of their problem. I also made myself a promise. I swore that I would never be bored with nothing to do. As far as promises go, this was an easy one to make and an easy one to keep.

Writing a thesis is an onerous task in that it is a written scientific document that sets up a scientific question, explains the importance of that question, describes the methods that have been used to try and answer the question and results and then reports the results of that research and objectively discusses its significance. The old saying, “wrote the book on the subject” almost describes a thesis when it comes to the depth and detail of the work involved. A Ph.D. thesis is a scientific textbook whose writing has often become la bête noire for Ph.D. candidates because it is a daunting job to put in writing four or five years of your work, but it is required to receive the degree.

Writing such a document takes an enormous amount of time, discipline and dedication. Some authors complain and talk about writer’s block. When they hit a block, they may take time off from writing or write something different to get back into the swing of writing. When writing a thesis, however, there is not just a deadline, but a degree and career on the line. Taking time off or doing something else is rarely an option.

My strategy for thesis writing was simple. I wrote on paper in longhand, and my goal was to write as much as possible. I wanted words on paper. Each blank page was an enemy and I wanted to fill those pages with stuff. Ann would help by transcribing the longhand into the computer. Even though I can touch type and compose at the computer, I found that if I transcribed my longhand myself I spent too much time editing. I also felt less of a sense of accomplishment when writing at the computer because it in came out looking like one long page, and I liked to see a big batch of finished pages, signaling productivity. So Ann typed up and saved the longhand pages to help me feel productive. As the pile grew I was closer to finishing.

I did get writer’s block, though. I hit a very dry spell where nothing seemed to come out. Ann had caught up on transcribing, and I had finished proofing and polishing the previous drafts and completed all of the data analysis. There was no time or opportunity to take a break or do anything else—I really needed to get this draft finished. Since I seemed to be stalled anyway, Ann dragged me to the mall one evening. So, of course I was looking at some note pads and pens. I didn’t need any paper, but I purchased a scratch pad to write more thesis on and a fountain pen. I’d had many fountain pens, felt pens, ballpoint pens and tons of other writing implements. But this pen was really nice and it felt so smooth on the paper as I wrote. Having a new “toy” to play with helped me get out of my writing slump. The pen just slid along the paper and words came flowing again. Science, discussion and data were pouring forth again. Thanks to a new pen I was back on track. After this, anytime I hit a writing slump, I would go buy a new pen—often fountain pens but frequently ballpoints or anything that wrote and felt good helped me get back into the swing of writing. Sometimes with the fountain pens, I would change the ink before it completely ran out and write to see the color change as I wrote. They may sound silly, but these techniques got me to put ink on paper.

The first day and a half for Renee was relatively low stress with just simple chats and lunch talks. During the first research discussion I had with Renee she made it clear that I was very welcome in her lab, that she expected me there in January (18 months from now) and that she had the funding to pay for a full year of my work in Paris. Nonetheless she supported my plan to try and get grant funding to work in her lab. Getting grant funding of my own would be beneficial for my career and free up funds in Renee’s lab. She said that I would be able to get a grant in France called a “green” grant. I forget why it was called a green grant, but this was a big relief for me because it took some of the urgency out of my grant quest. Renee also made it clear that she liked the ideas I had for doing research in her lab. In a nutshell, Renee was an expert on creatine kinase in the heart and I was working on creatine kinase in arteries. We used different research methods. I had proposed that I learn her research techniques to study arteries and I would use my knowledge of arteries in her lab. That way we would both gain information and do research that had never been done before.

Dinner on Monday was sponsored by the Department of Physiology and it was friendly, animated and informative. We talked about social issues, the difficulties of doing research and obtaining research funding and how constant that was from country to country. There was discussion of how hard it was to keep up with rapidly developing technologies and all the publications that must be read to keep up. Several of our dinner party had wine with dinner; I was driving, so I didn’t drink. Not surprisingly, the topic of French wine came up as we were drinking California Red. Everyone was effusive about French wine compared to American wine, but Renee pointed out that most French and American wines are actually related. French wine grapes were originally brought to America to start the American vineyards. However, after World War II, many French vineyards were decimated, so vines from America were returned to France to help restore the wine industry. Thus the two wine industries were intimately linked via “multi cross pollination” over the years.

Late the second day, I brought Renee to Ron Myer’s office for their chat. They really needed no introduction, but I introduced them nonetheless. I left them together with the understanding that Ron would bring Renee to me when they were done. Renee came back after the meeting and said they had a genteel and polite talk that concluded by agreeing to disagree.

For Renee’s keynote lecture, I was scheduled to introduce her to the audience. This lecture was on Wednesday afternoon, the second to last day of Renee’s visit. I was again in a suit and tie for the introduction. I had a wide range of clothes including suits and formal wear, so I took care to wear different suits, ties and shirts each day that week. This may seem trivial, but I considered the week with Renee as a kind of job interview. Most college graduates know that if you have repeat interviews with the same employer for a job, you never wear the same suit for a second interview. This might imply that you only have one suit or could be interpreted as lack of depth or sophistication. So, I chose my outfits carefully to demonstrate diversity. Today I was NOT wearing an all-red suit. I introduced Renee and told the audience about her degrees, her numerous publications, and diverse array of research techniques.

Renee’s presentation was well received. She addressed some of the research issues concerning compartmentation, but I think in deference to Ron Myer she focused more on verifiable research data as opposed to interpretations of those data. The questioning after the presentation was polite yet probing. Renee handled the questions deftly, as a true scientific professional. I had been hoping Renee’s talk would go well and it did, and I felt quite relieved afterward.

Renee went shopping now for her two boys and husband. We went to the local mall and the university bookstore. She looked carefully at all of the university goods and some typically American things such as T-shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers, and pens. Clothes sizes are different in Europe and America, so she needed to hold up all the gifts to estimate the sizes she needed.

When her shopping was finished she proclaimed, “Ok, now I am allowed to go back home!”

On the last day of Renee’s visit we had quite a bit of time together to debrief on the week and to finish refining the details of my future job in her lab. I also talked to her about the tentative plans I had to have Ann come to live with me after a few months. Renee said that she could help Ann get a job in France and help us to find accommodations once Ann arrived. Apparently there were a number of English-speaking enclaves where Ann could find work. I felt really good now about my future with Ann and my future career. I trusted Renee and saw great things in the future working with her.

I drove Renee to the airport with genuine respect and affection for the person who would be my next boss. After the difficulties I had with Clint, I desperately wanted a good rapport with her and saw no obstacles to that end. At the airport Renee told me what a great visit it had been and that she appreciated all of my efforts. She also asked me why I hadn’t stayed with her during her visits and talks with different people. I told her that different organizations had paid for various parts of her visit and I felt that they had earned the right to time alone with her, without being encumbered by me. I said that I had also planned it that way so that I could some of the time to work on my grant proposal. She understood, but I was amazed that she appeared to have expected to spend all of that time with me.

When we reached her gate, Renee said, “Let’s say good-bye the French way.” And we kissed twice on each cheek.

I drove home to Ann completely exhausted. I told her about the possibilities Renee said there were for her and us in Paris. We had our mutual goals and we would be together in France. I would be going to Paris to work in January. Ann would come out in June or July and we would live together in Paris for about six months. We would both return to home the following December or January. This was all very exciting.

There were two pivotal meetings scheduled for Renee that could shape the perception of the success or failure of the trip. One was her talk to the Department of Physiology, and the second was a one-on-one meeting with Ron Myer. Dr. Myer was a known opponent of the compartmentation theory and Dr. Ventura-Clapier was a supporter. They had never, to my knowledge, talked face-to face about their theories. This would be an opportunity to do that. I, of course, could not compel them to chat, but I would provide them with the opportunity to do so. Just getting them together for a friendly conversation would be a huge meeting of the minds and I was in a position to make that happen.

Renee was an experienced scientist and accomplished public speaker, so I was not concerned with her ability to give a good presentation. My concern was that the attendance might be disappointing, or that the questions from an audience populated by anti-compartmentation people might be antagonistic. To address this, I made it clear well in advance that my future post-doc was at stake and that a lively discussion was always welcome, but that it would be assumed that everyone would be friendly. The promise of a “lively” discussion helped generate even more interest in Renee’s talk.

For Renee’s visit I organized a minute-by-minute schedule with all the different faculty members, some social time and work time with me. She was meeting with the Department Chairs, and scientists, from many different departments, post docs, the French club, and a group of cardiologists, plus a lunch session with undergraduates. I also built into her schedule some time to go shopping for some local souvenirs. Renee had two young sons and this would probably be an important part of any trip abroad. I intentionally scheduled multiple meetings with Renee for me because I thought I might need to do some work off line between meetings with her. While I was taking her from appointment to appointment, I was going to use the time she was in meetings to work on my research project in France.

The day of Renee’s arrival was fast approaching and the plans were going well. We had the funds we needed to cover Renee’s costs; she would be reimbursed for her out-of pocket expenses and her airfare paid upon arrival. Unfortunately an interesting wrinkle came to light. She would be reimbursed for half her airfare while in Michigan and the other half when she returned. This despite the fact that she could prove that she had already paid the full fare. The administration apparently felt that she would have only incurred half the cost of the fare until she made the return trip. She wouldn’t get full reimbursement until she returned to France. It would be up to me to explain that to her. I hoped she had a sense of humor.

Renee arrived at Lansing Airport from Paris on a Sunday evening. I met her there and gave her the schedule for the week, a list of emergency contact phone numbers and a map of the university with key locations highlighted and explained, including where she was staying, and the Department of Physiology building. She was jetlagged and tired, and the week was going to be a long one, so I brought her right to her accommodations. I also explained to her that we would be able to get her a reimbursement check during the week, but that her biggest expense; the airfare, could only be partially reimbursed now. I told her the administration rule about this and she thought it was silly and quite funny. She was a good sport about it. I briefed her on the week explained all the stuff I gave her, and promised to pick her up the next day bright and early.

I went home to Ann and shared my excitement about the upcoming week. She was excited too, but I knew she was also dreading the week because it reinforced the likelihood of our impending separation. She was also concerned that the week might not go well, but most of that was beyond the control of either of us. For the next few days providence would be controlling our destiny with regard to Renee’s visit, and maybe even our trip to Paris.

I arrived to pick up Renee right on time. I dressed in a suit and tie for the occasion and had called her first appointment in advance to ensure that they would be there. She was meeting with the Chair of Physiology as kind of a welcoming talk. I dropped her off and left to prepare some things for when Renee and I would be talking later that day.

It was important for me to get a grant to support my research because the politics of higher education and research are an amalgam of the altruistic scientist who wants to do the greatest good for humankind and may put his or her life at risk to expand human knowledge, and the empire builder in the field for personal gain. There are stories of scientists injecting themselves with compounds at great personal risk, to test those compounds and prove a point. Groundbreaking research on ulcer drugs was demonstrated when a research gave himself an ulcer to prove a point about the cause and treatment. The first clot busting drugs were self-injected by one of the developers to prove them safe. As with any discipline, there are also the politicians who crave power and prestige. There are scientists who reuse their own data to obtain additional publications or funding. Some who become chairs of departments and redirect departmental funds for their pet projects or department chairs who insist that their name be put on all the papers coming out of their department in their field. This is a phenomenon known as ghost authoring.

An unfortunate aspect of higher education and research is that it is managed and controlled by the federal government. How many doctors and scientists a country will have is determined by how much the government decides to spend on educating those people. With more scientists you will have more discoveries. Students are recruited to scientific disciplines for their Ph.Ds. based on the educational funds that are available. During the race to the moon there were many new astronomers and engineers because the money was going there. During the AIDS crisis a large amount of federal and foundation funding went to that research and the result was a lot more scientists trained in immunological disciplines.

On the other hand, one can lose entire generations of scientists when funding dries up. The scientific community had stopped training protein chemists in the late 1980s because funding was diverted to other things. The older scientists trained in that discipline were not getting students and were often relegated to administrative posts or teaching with no research funding. When new technologies were developed to look more closely at proteins, that suddenly became an issue with a huge demand and effectively no one training new scientists in the field, a situation made worse by all the former experts having been sidelined due to lack of funds to support their labs. The politics of higher education suffers or benefits enormously based on the dictates of the politicians. What research is done and who goes into that research is somewhat of a popularity contest where researchers follow the money.

Some may even argue that downturns in funding are a natural part of the life cycle where the weaker scientists are “culled” from the field. The concept of survival of the fittest does not apply here. So, if you have a period of difficulty in funding or a drop in popularity of a research area the scientists who remain at the end or the students who receive degrees in it are not the fittest. The smart scientists will have options and go elsewhere. The dynamic, groundbreaking scientists will follow the money and be where the action is. Economics and finances teach us to diversify and the smart scientist will have a varied research or income portfolio. If one research avenue dries up, he or she will go into another one or go into teaching, administration or corporate research. Generally, those who remain in an unfunded research field are those who have few or no other options for work; the strongest have moved and the remaining scientists may not be the best in the field.

Ann and I had many conversations about my putative plans to go to Paris to do my postdoctoral studies. She felt that she could not spend a whole year out of the country. She was close to her family and did not want to be away from them. Her pilot lessons were also going well and she couldn’t afford to lose that much time from them, either. She was concerned as well about the fact that she didn’t know anyone abroad, nor did she speak French. I had started taking lessons, but did not yet speak French myself yet either. She was supportive of my plans to go to France, but we needed to form a strategy to keep our relationship strong and maturing. I desperately wanted her to come with me, but understood her reasons for not wanting to be away that long.

We finally decided that I would go to Paris and scout out jobs for Ann as well as a place for us to live. I would try to pave the way for her to come to live with me, a role I found exciting with lots of potential. This represented a compromise for both of us that would offer a way for us to continue growing our relationship.

A lot of planning was still needed for me to set up my next job in France even before my job at Michigan State University was finished. I felt that Ann and I were in a good place and that allowed me to focus on what I needed to do to finish my degree and get to France. Mail, phone calls and email[1] were helpful in organizing a research year abroad, but a face-to-face meeting between myself and my future boss Renee Ventura-Clapier was needed. It would be great if I could go to France to talk to her, but I didn’t have a passport yet and nor could I afford to travel there. I enquired around the university to see if there were funding options to pay for Renee to come to Michigan. I discovered that there were guest speaker programs and sponsorship opportunities available. These programs generally required a speaker of stature to qualify for funding. Renee was a world-renowned researcher, so it was the university might fund her trip to Michigan.

I decided to sponsor a proposal to pay for Renee to come to Michigan and do some lectures. It seemed like a good idea to facilitate communication and solidify the plans for my year in Paris. Little did I realize the enormous amount of work I had committed myself to doing.

My plan of attack was to first determine a budget for the trip. Then to get Renee to suggest some dates to come and visit as well as make sure Dr. Dillon and the rest of the department were interested in having her as a speaker. Then I would just need to assure myself that all of this would be a good use of my time. I estimated that a trip from Paris to Michigan for about 5 days would cost $3000 to $5000, depending upon the availability of cheap flights. This included airfare, accommodations, local transportation, meals and the traditional honorarium for her lectures. I presented a cost analysis and funding strategy to Dr. Dillon and the other faculty in the department and got the go-ahead.

Now I wrote proposals to the Student Activities Committee (called SAC) and the graduate students’ board for funding. The graduate students board offered $500. The Student Activities Committee was less enthusiastic. They seemed to think that Michigan State undergraduate students would not be interested in talking to a professor from Paris. Michigan State University was big into students going to Oxford University with a Rhodes Scholarship, but Paris was not serious enough. They said no funding. I lobbied individual departments for funding, too, and was fortunate to get funding from Radiology, Physiology, Engineering, Biochemistry, and Women in Science. I had estimated that Renee would be here for 3 full working days, and each department wanted either a talk or a discussion opportunity. Each piece of committed time for Renee was time away from us planning my future. This was a real case of time is money. I was selling Renee’s one on one face time for sponsorship dollars, and at the same time decreasing the time I would have to plan our research. I would haggle over every half hour that I had to part with when negotiating with department chairs and administrators.

Even after all of this, I still needed another $1000. Renee was willing to come and could cancel if I failed to raise the rest of the cash. She assured me that my position in her lab was safe, but I was committed in getting her to Michigan. It quickly became common knowledge that my fundraising was coming up short and Renee’s visit started to be discussed with question marks and uncertainty as to if she were coming. I was finally able to get some funding from Family Practice because of Renee’s publication history on heart attacks and heart failure. Creatine Kinase is an important diagnostic test for these patients, and Family practice physicians were willing to talk to her.

The international center would sponsor a luncheon for her to talk at, as well, for a small contribution to her travel fund. But, I was still short. I filed an appeal with the Student Activities Committee with a new tactic. I told them that Renee was an experienced scientist and mentor of medical students, including students from English-speaking countries. I was granted permission to apply again and tried to sell the committee on the opportunities that would be available to undergraduates who wanted to do a short stint abroad or go to graduate school in France. They were a little more receptive, but suggested that I charge admission to Renee’s talks. While on the surface this might seem logical, the scientific academic community rarely charges admission fees. The ethos for this group of professionals is open and free access to information. We do not charge for talks. The Student Activities Committee at last made an offer for a very modest amount of financial support, but it finally brought me to the minimum level of funding needed.

This whole undertaking took several months of effort and I had committed Renee to a huge amount of time during her stay. Nearly every breakfast, lunch and dinner was booked. She had talks, discussions and meetings with numerous organizations and faculty members. All the sponsors would get their return on investment. My investment in the visit was the time I put into setting it up and organizing it, and I would protect that investment by shuttling her from meeting to meeting and chatting with her every opportunity we had. I was very selfish—I filled in all the “down time” with grant and research plan discussions with me.

---

[1] My first ever emails were sent to France to organize my post doc in Paris.

It is sometimes hard to comprehend all the work that goes on in the scientific community. This is because there are multiple disciplines in science and these can overlap and get complicated. Confusion occurs because sometimes the scientific terms used can be different depending upon which community you talk to. For example, physicists and chemists will call nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Physicians who use NMR to do imaging do not use the acronym NMR; they say MRI for magnetic resonance imaging. In my work, it was important to talk to the chemists, physiologists and physicians to be current on all the latest research. To do this, I attended conferences and meetings by NMR chemists and MRI physicians.

I was attending a conference on NMR and doing a poster presentation. Because of some last-minute changes in plans, Dr. Dillon could not make the meeting. I had attended one or two scientific meetings before, and given presentations before. So attending without Dr. Dillon was no problem. It’s nice to have one’s supervisor there because in my case for example Dr. Dillon could introduce me to other people and discuss our work compared to others’, but everyone needs to learn to fly solo at these conferences sooner or later. So now it was time for me to go it alone. Dr. Dillon and I prepared my presentation and I practiced it over and over. Many people had told me I was good at giving talks and presentations, so I was not too worried about form, but there are always people out there who know more than you, so I am always concerned with content. B.S. is not recommended at scientific conferences because the facts are always out there and someone is going to have the detailed factoid. Admitting, “I do not know” is much better than being caught in a guess later proven to be wrong.

I was listening to a talk by a highly respected scientist who was doing some very high tech and cutting edge experiments. His talk was on getting the maximum amount of information out of an experiment in the shortest amount of time. Time is money in business and time is data in science. So more data in less time is like a greater return on investment in a shorter time frame. He alluded to some information in his talk but did not give the details. The information he passed over seemed important, but he didn’t explain it. I really wanted to learn more about it, but had never asked a question at a big scientific meeting. Normally I could whisper a question to Dr. Dillon and get clarification, but he was not here. I was sure other people would ask the question that was bothering me at the end of his talk. But when his talk concluded no one was asking questions. I was very anxious for that information and reluctant to ask a question at such a prestigious meeting when I was not even a Ph.D. But my hand shot up almost involuntarily, so I stood up and asked the question. The moderator asked me to identify myself and my institution; as was customary at this conference, so I said,

“Joe Clark, just a graduate student from Michigan State.”

The speaker graciously took the question, and said it was one that gave him time to address some things he didn’t have time to go into during his speech proper. He then spent a minute or two answering the question and finally thanked me for the question. The information he provided was important to me and to my research. It really didn’t change what I was doing, but it showed me that what I was thinking in my work was similar to what he was thinking. Some fellow graduate students from Michigan State came up to me afterward and congratulated me on the successful question. We all knew that actively participating in a meeting (without looking like a fool) was a big achievement for any one of us. The old adage in such circumstances is, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” I had managed to open my mouth, ask a cogent question, and be treated as a peer by experienced colleagues I admired. I felt a little more grown up that day because I was taken seriously and treated like an equal by all those well-known and seemingly all-knowing scientists. I was really excited about this and the first person I wanted to tell of my triumph was Ann.

Ann was politely supportive of my story about speaking up at the conference, although she said that I participated in lots of discussions at home so she did not really see the significance of the different venue. Perhaps she had a point. Maybe participating at home and at a conference was essentially the same, but to me it felt different because I was out of my familiar environment. I guess I needed to think of the arena of talking science as my home.

After lunch Dad drove all four of us to the local airport where his plane was. I was going to get a ride in a two-seater Piper Cub. I’d been on lots of planes before, but never a small propeller-driven plane like this. As we drove through the airport Dad gave us a tour of the planes we passed. He would name them and tell us who owned them and even a history of the planes and their owners. The owners of several of the small private planes were executives from the auto industry that Dad knew well.

We pulled up next to a school bus orange plane on what looked three spindly legs with wheels. It was tied down at the wings and tail and it seemed tiny compared to the commercial planes I’d been on. I had never been up close to a private plane before, so this was a brand-new experience. The skin was fabric and the floor looked like balsa wood. The plane looked as if it would be crushed by the weight of a child, let alone two adults. Dad said he could fly three, but the third person would not have a window; he laughed at that comment, but I didn’t get the joke. The tail looked like a coffin, which made me understand now that a third person could lay down in the tail while the pilot and passenger sat in the two seats. Both seats had controls to fly the plane. I was told this was because the pilot would sit in the front or the back, depending upon how the weight in the plane was distributed.

I had honor of being first to be given a ride in the Piper Cub; often just called, “the cub.”

Dad motioned me to the back seat and showed me how to buckle in. He also pointed out the controls and told me that he would be flying the plane from the front and that the controls would be moving and not to stop the movement of the controls. Preventing him from operating the controls of the plane was something I had no intention of doing. I was excited to fly with him and tried hard to take it all in.

I was strapped into the back seat and about to take off on my first small plane ride. Dad said we would make a short loop around town and then land so that Ann could get some flying time in, too. Then he revved the engine while Mom and Ann waved us off to the runway. There was no tower at this little airport so pilots worked on visual flying rules. So Dad looked up down and to the side and cleared himself for takeoff. The engines made a tremendous noise as we proceeded down the runway. I realized that I had taken off many times, but never with a view in front of me. What was in front of me was trees and that was scary. We were heading directly for a stand of tall and very solid-looking trees. Dad seemed unconcerned, and well before the end of the runway, we picked up altitude and cleared the trees by a wide margin. We turned around and dipped our wings as we passed over Ann and Mom. Once we were cruising at a constant altitude the engine noise subsided and we had a beautiful view of the surrounding countryside. The day was mild and extremely clear—I could see for miles. There were factories in the distance and when we flew by Ann’s parent’s house, I could see Ann’s car in the driveway and the dogs outside playing. With my own set of controls, I could see what Dad was doing as he flew and anticipate what was going to be happening as the controls moved. I was actually in the cockpit of an airplane!

The landing was very different from the takeoff, but it went very smoothly. There was a mild cross breeze and we almost seemed to be flying sideways as we headed for the runway. As we landed the plane turned to the direction of the runway and we quickly came to a stop. Dad explained to me that the cross breeze made it necessary to ”crab” or fly sideways on the approach. On larger planes passengers may not feel or see how much “crabbing” a plane is doing, but in a small plane it was obvious.

Ann and Dad took off now with Ann at the controls (Ann couldn’t solo yet). They flew off out of sight and Mom and I stayed on the ground talking about my flight. She mentioned how good a pilot their son Clay was in the cub and that it was not flown as much since he died. I asked her if she would be going for a ride, and she said no. One or two planes took off and landed as we chatted, but it was not a busy airport. Mom waved at some people she knew and I kept an eye out for the orange Piper Cub.

Suddenly I saw it approaching the airport. I couldn’t tell if Ann or Dad was at the controls, but I felt some apprehension as it came in with its nose pointing to the runway. It glided in gently and quietly and the nose pulled up just as the three wheels hit the ground. Ann and Dad were smiling at us as the Piper Cub wheeled its way towards us. Ann waved as Dad steered it to its spot beside us.

Ann got out and announced that she had taken off and flown most of the flight except for the landing. With the cross wind, she didn’t feel comfortable crabbing for a landing. Dad tied down the plane and we piled into the car to head back home. We got back to Ann’s parents’ house and immediately started saying goodbyes. I petted the dogs goodbye, hugged Mom and Dad, and Ann and I walked to the car and headed home.

After a visit of only a few hours, I felt a real connection with her parents and a deeper connection with Ann.

We were going to meet Ann’s parents, and the drive from Lansing to Flint, Michigan, where they lived, was only about an hour. I had met several members of her family already and gotten the seal of approval from them. But now I was meeting Mom and Dad, and felt as nervous as if I were going to a job interview. A job interview for a position I really wanted. Ann assured me that her parents were kind people who cared about her and would like me because I made her happy.

Ann had a great relationship with her parents, and as the baby of the family, she had a special bond with them. She briefed me in great detail about them. Her dad was a retired floor manager of an assembly line at GM. He was a gifted machinist who could build or repair anything. He also was living with and managing bladder cancer, having been in remission for several years.

Mom was a dedicated wife and mother who loved and protected her family. She was born and raised locally and was a fountain of knowledge on local history. She loved to tell stories of all the factories nearby that had been used to make war supplies for the military during World War II. Michigan’s car factories made tanks, trucks and jeeps to support the war effort and everyone in the area supported the war effort.

The family had suffered a tragedy a few years ago with the death of their youngest son (he was two years older than Ann) in a motorcycle accident. His name was Clay and like his father he was an accomplished and avid pilot. He was also a thoroughly competent motorcycle driver, but he was a passenger on the day he died.

Mom and Dad were both happy that Ann was learning to fly and Dad would let her take the controls of his own plane anytime she wanted. Between her lessons at home and chances to fly with her dad, Ann had lots of opportunity to get in flying hours.

When we reached Flint we pulled into the driveway of a well-kept house on the edge of a cornfield. It was a baby blue, single-story building with a large wooden front porch as well as dog runs encircling the house. The front door opened directly into the kitchen. Mom was in the kitchen and the whole house had a wonderful scent of home cooking. Mom’s face lit up at the sight of Ann and Ann squealed with delight as she ran to her mom. Mom was dressed in a simple floral dress and a well-worn apron. They embraced and I shuffled nervously behind Ann. Mom’s eyes were closed first as they hugged, but then they opened up and sized me up.

“And this must be Joe,” she said cordially.

I felt incredibly self-conscious as Ann introduced me, and without saying a word I stuck out my right hand to shake hands. Mom ignored my hand and gave me a warm hug saying,

“Nice to meet you.”

“Nice to meet you too, Ma’am.”

Looking at Ann, she said. “Go and see Dad, I have stuff to finish here.”

“It smells wonderful.” Ann said as I nodded vigorously.

Now it was time to meet Dad.

Dad was in the living room, also known as the TV room, with two dogs at his feet. He was dressed comfortably in a long-sleeve T-shirt and blue work pants that showed signs of having been involved in many workshop projects.

Dad and the two dogs stood up when we entered, and Ann and Dad hugged. Dad’s eyes were then glued on me while the dogs sniffed at my feet. The dogs alternated between greeting Ann and checking out my scent. Dad gave me a very firm handshake, with his eyes still locked on mine. Dad looked and felt like a strong and vital man who had weathered years of hard work providing for and raising a family.

Ann introduced us and he, still gripping my hand, said “Nice to meet you, Joe.”

“Pleasure to meet you too, Sir,” I said.

“Have a seat,” he said as he clicked off the TV and Ann said something about helping Mom in the kitchen as she walked away.

He introduced me to the dogs, Sam and Sally, as all four of us sat down. The dogs were siblings from the same litter. Sam was about 80 pounds, white, black and brown. Sally was much smaller, and grey and black. She had grey around her muzzle that made her look like an old man with a grey beard. They were mixed-breed mutts, very loyal and friendly. Sam seemed to like me and was a floppy-eared gentle giant. He tried to crawl into my lap, which was apparently not allowed and was immediately stopped with a strong “noooo” from Dad using a deep voice that made him sound like a tuba.

“So, you’re the one dating my daughter,” he said.

“Yes, Sir,” I said and he nodded.

We talked, and he asked me about my work at the university and about my family. I told him about my parents and he was interested in my father’s carpentry work and that he had taught me some of his trade.

“So you know your way around a workshop?” he asked.

“Yes, Sir.” I replied.

“Wanna see my shop?”

“Yes, Sir.”

“All these ‘Yes, Sirs” I’m hearing make me wonder if you were in the military. Were you?”

“No, Sir, I was not, but my father was and he impressed upon us kids respect and the use of sir and ma’am.”

Dad nodded understandingly. He opened a fireproof door to a huge workshop at the back of the house. It was more like a high-end machine shop with tools, metals, wood, pipes and an impressive array of heavy-duty professional looking machines and equipment. This included welders, cutters, benders, saws, pneumatic equipment and stuff I did not recognize. Dad beamed with pride in his “cave,” as he called it. It reminded me a lot of the workshop that my father had in our garage, again reached through a fireproof door. My father’s tools were more woodworking than metal working, but the feeling I got in the workshop was surprisingly similar and somehow comforting. I felt a sense of familiarity and security like I did in my parents’ house in New York.

My tour of the cave was suddenly interrupted by Ann calling us in for brunch. In the dining room Mom had prepared a huge spread, a wide range of fantastic-looking food appropriate for breakfast and lunch, enough for at least 10 people, though it was just the 4 of us.

When we sat down to this splendid repast, the conversation ranged from my research, to Ann’s flying, her dad’s and my dad’s workshops and the great food. Mom had made two types of hash browns and two types of eggs, plus there were cold cuts, two kinds of fresh bread for sandwiches (wheat and white), a large collection of condiments, salad with several dressings, and breakfast sausage and bacon. No one was going hungry and the assortment of foods was comparable to what a good caterer would prepare for an upscale event. I complimented Mom on the great meal and proved it to her by trying everything and taking seconds of many dishes.

Afterward, I was almost too full to move. I had convinced Mom of my enjoyment of her cooking by the volume and enthusiasm of what I ate, but I really overdid it. After brunch Ann gave me a tour of the house, excluding Dad’s cave. Ann’s bedroom was still exactly the same as it had been when she was a kid living at home. She took on an almost childlike demeanor as she recounted the significance of some of the things in it. On the shelves were cheerleading awards, clippings from the school paper, prom photos and stuffed animals. For her it was as if she were back in high school again. For me it was a unique view into her life, which I felt privileged to share with her. I thought about my former bedroom in my own home. My own parents, too, had left it largely untouched since I left for college. Ann’s family was highly reminiscent of my own.

Graduate school is a lot more than school. Yes, there are classes, and yes a degree is involved and there is most definitely tuition being paid for class credit. But graduate school is most definitely work—it is a full time job. It involves deadlines, duties, bosses and a small subsistence stipend, which is aptly named. I loved what I was doing, and It was starting to produce real data and become very interesting. Despite the great few days Ann and I had in the UP, I was looking forward to getting back to the usual grind.

My thesis showed that creatine kinase was very important in vascular smooth muscle function and metabolism. Without it the artery did not work very well. Dr. Dillon and I scheduled an experiment in the NMR lab to examine creatine kinase when in the presence of another protein called pyruvate kinase. Pyruvate kinase is a metabolic enzyme and we wanted to see how the two of them worked when mixed together. This was a small practice experiment so we purchased the two proteins, which was good for me because I did not need to purify anything.

We especially wanted to see if the two proteins would do their enzyme reaction at the same time in the same solution. This could be seen with the NMR machine. I prepared the solutions for the experiment, which like all scientific experiments required control (or non reactive) solutions and then the real ones for the experiment. We expected to see two reactions occurring at once. There was a possibility that only one or the other of the proteins would react and we did indeed see one reaction. But it was not the reaction of one or the other protein.

“Oh no,” I said when we first saw it, “it didn’t work!”

“I think we are seeing that both proteins are now combined and working as one in a separate reaction,” Dr. Dillon said.

I looked carefully at the computer screen and saw what he saw. A completely new reaction was occurring, that could be a combination of both proteins together.

“Ok, if that is correct, we should be able to see the same exact thing in reverse.” I countered.

Dr. Dillon instantly agreed and we quickly changed things to confirm our new hypothesis by running the whole experiment in reverse. Our second experiment did indeed show that the reaction worked in reverse. This was a true discovery. Two proteins mixed together were acting in a new way by combining and doing their two reactions together to effectively form a new reaction. While this was exciting, it would take a lot of work to completely confirm what we thought we are seeing. We needed to repeat the same experiment on different days with fresh solutions. We also needed to confirm that the two proteins could interact that way. A bunch of calculations would be needed to prove that our observations were consistent with mathematical theory. A lot of things needed to be done, which all seemed to sound like a lot of fun.

All these exciting experiments were not directly relevant to my Ph.D. thesis, however. This was a point of confusion for me. Was I being presented with a new path or a diversion away from my road to my career goals? Every second spent doing experiments that would not go into my thesis was a delay in my graduation. I was directly involved in a brand-new discovery in science, but the clear path to finishing my thesis did not include this new research pathway.

I finally made the very hard choice to keep my research focused on my thesis and only very briefly participated on the work concerning the discovery of the link between creatine kinase and pyruvate kinase[1]. My thesis work took priority, so the discovery was taken over by Dr. Dillon. I had a job to do and needed to avoid diversions, no matter how interesting or potentially important. A difficult decision, but not one I have ever regretted; I concentrated on the prize of my Ph.D.

Ann sensed that I was pumped up about the discovery and understood my decision to focus on the thesis. We were becoming a family of Ann, Joe and Ellie. Ann and I always talked about our plans for each day and how things were going at work. There was great comfort in our routine. Ellie was always anxious to play with us and I suggested that she needed a playmate. When Ann reminded me that the apartment complex did not allow two dogs, I pointed out that a dog and a cat was allowed. I grew up with cats and loved kitties. Ann was not opposed to cats, but should we get a cat as a playmate for Ellie we would need to find one who got along with dogs. But for our burgeoning family a little furry addition was agreed to quickly.

One of the physicians in Ann’s office was moving and had a female cat that needed a new home. He brought the cat in and Ann fell in love with her. The cat’s name was “Miss Baby Mittens” and Ann called me and described a very pretty and affectionate longhaired tabby, with white feet (like mittens) and some white on her chest. Miss Baby Mittens soon became the fourth member of our family. She had a hard time getting used to Ellie, and Ellie was unsure at first about Miss Baby Mittens, but everyone eventually got along. Miss Baby Mittens loved sleeping in the bed with us and could often be found sleeping in the sun somewhere. If the sun was out, she was asleep and being warmed by its rays. I loved cats and this one was easy to like. She loved to be held, was a good-tempered and gentle, had all of her claws and loved to play like a kitten. She was not neutered, and we couldn’t afford to get her “fixed” so on occasion she would come into season and be meowing all through the apartment with neighboring cats answering her call. Being on the third floor, we did not have too many problems, but one particularly ambitious tomcat ended up in our balcony and we couldn’t imagine how he climbed up a brick wall to there, but he did.

“‘A’ for effort, but you are still not going for a roll in the hay with Miss Baby Mittens,” Ann told him. Fortunately he was friendly, so we picked him up and put him back outside. He did not repeat his feat, and no other toms in the neighborhood figured out how to get to our balcony, so we were not too bothered by the serenades of the throngs of fans Miss Baby Mittens had accumulated.

Miss Baby Mittens was a greeter cat, which meant that when we got home at the end of the day she was at the door waiting to say hello to us. But when she was in heat she would be waiting at the door to get out, so we had to be extra careful. The apartment door opened into the building, but the main apartment door downstairs was often open and we did not want her getting out. One day, however, she did get out. She was down the steps and out of sight before I knew it. I threw my stuff into the house and ran after her. My main concern was her getting hit by a car or simply getting completely lost. Getting pregnant by some tom would be bad, but far less serious. When I reached the bottom of the stairs I saw that the apartment complex door was closed, so it was doubtful that she got outside. The door to an apartment nearby was ajar, however. It belonged to someone I didn’t know, but I knocked on the door and called into the apartment. A young Asian looking male answered the door and I asked if he had seen our cat.

“No, I have no pets,” he said.

“What I mean is, we lost our cat and she may have come in your apartment through the open door,” I said, noticing that he seemed to have been bringing in groceries, based on the bags on the floor. This explained the open door, but it also might mean that Miss Baby Mittens escaped out of the complex as the groceries were coming in.

“May I look inside to see if our cat is in there?” I asked. He was about to answer when I saw Miss Baby Mittens run from one room to another behind him.

“There she is!” I shouted.

He turned quickly enough to see her scurry into the kitchen. He stepped aside and let me pass.

Miss Baby Mittens cowered on the floor with her tail all puffed up, clearly revealing just how afraid she was, but she let me pick her up and bring her home. I thanked the guy and brought her upstairs. I told Ann about the “great escape” and she scolded Miss Baby Mittens. After this, Miss Baby Mittens continued to greet us when we got home, but stopped trying to escape.

---

[1] This work was published with the following reference. P.F. Dillon and J.F. Clark. The Theory of Diazymes and functional Coupling of Pyruvate Kinase and Creatine Kinase. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 143; 275-284, 1990.