The Minority Affairs Committee luncheon began with an informal lunchtime discussion between faculty and students. As suggested by attendees of a previous year’s luncheon, the setup involved assigning several faculty to each table and allowing students and post-docs to fill the remaining seats. The room was abuzz with discussion for the first portion of the session, at which point Dr. Kimberly Griffin took the stage to discuss mentoring. Dr. Griffin opened by asking everyone to consider how they referred to their primary investigator; attendees suggested titles ranging from “boss” to “advisor” to “mentor”, and Griffin segued into a discussion of traits attributed to each term. Once it was clear that each title conferred a unique set of qualities, she spent the remaining time focusing on the qualities of a “mentor” and the inherent relationship. Based on her presentation, it was clear that good mentoring is critical but not often prioritized. A recurring theme of Griffin’s talk was that a mentoring relationship is a two-way street; it involves effort on both the part of the mentor and the mentee. After asking each participant to list several qualities important to a mentoring relationship, she directed us to circle those most important to us and to cross off those we could do without. This exercise segued into an evaluation of the most important qualities of a mentoring relationship for each of us and an emphasis that each person was different and thus needed to seek an appropriate mentor or mentee. A common pitfall is seeking a mentor who is similar to you rather than a mentor who meets your specific needs. Griffin shared that when beginning a new mentoring relationship, she requires each mentee to send a list of five “must-haves” and five “can’t-stands” to set the tone of the relationship. She concluded by emphasizing that each mentoring relationship is unique and that mentors should not feel pressured to have the same type of relationship with each mentee (and to be transparent about this fact). Although it was structured as a formal talk, Griffin made a point to incite discussion and address questions throughout her presentation, and there was much participation as a result. Appropriately, the session ended with further discussion among individuals at each table.
Today at the conference there were two major symposia, one on synthetic biology (making drugs from plant processes/engineering cheaper ways to make medicines) and the first in a series of 2: Feeding 9 Billion (nourishing 9 Billion is tomorrow). It sort of continued on Don Ort’s talk about heat waves and how it’s going to be hard to grow more food on less land.
Both concerned genetically modified organisms, especially the second one (sponsored by Monsanto). And I tweeted up a storm again today.
I went to a minisymposia talk Malia Gehan (@maliadong) gave on the phenotyping robot system they have at the Danforth Center to do mass imaging of plants over time.
I talked to my Ph.D. advisor which was good. I socialized a bit at the iConnect booth. I talked over digital future issues with some DFUG members, including Nate, a guy who develops software at ac company that’s going to help change the website of plant biology, the face of plant biology and indeed hopefully strengthening the community of plant biologists to enable us to do better work to feed those projected 9 billion people in the face of climate change.
I went out with some younger scientists too—the future plant biologists of America/the world, amongst others. It was all amazing!
I was thinking about Brian Larkins advice about competition being your friend; and indeed, it does make us tend to do better, but healthy competition; compete over ideas and work, and make it great, but don’t get to a point of hating anther human. Or try competing by outthinking; collaborate with someone outside your sub discipline that can do something your competitor can’t/hasn’t thought of. I’m not reinventing the wheel here, I’m sure. After all scientists do compete and collaborate all at the same time. We race to get things done before someone else (I don’t, and I’m not a particularly great scientist because of it).
Hearing the talks today, including one from the amazing Pam Ronald (@pcronald) on ecological farming practices, how GM has its place/role within that framework and how to stop the panic about GM technology; in some cases it’s the only thing that can solve the problem (some gross diseases plants get, e.g.).
There are really smart people at Plant Biology. Doing amazing work. Ann Amtmann talked about a stress priming mechanism in plants in response to an early salt stress that then was repeated later and the plant ‘remembered’ it’s first stress event and hyper-responded.
I walked around the exhibitor booths too. The technology out there is impressive. The education booths are amazing too; education is key as teaching is a great way to learn, but also bring along new people who will bring new ideas into the field. We need those too.
So with that, I feel a little optimistic; the young scientists are clever, hardworking and dedicated (while not taking themselves too seriously). In fact, today, I had the biggest case of impostorism ever; what am I doing at this conference with all these amazing people who are doing really fundamental research into plants at many levels (from the not currently ‘hot’ research to the incredibly so). Plants are amazing organisms we need to live, survive and thrive and they’re fascinating organisms with a lot more going on than would meet the eye normally.
So I am a bit more optimistic. There’s a timeline at ASPB that included the 90 year history of the society. I was a rebel and put two on the outer fringes: 1860′s Gregor Mendel and one beyond 2014; “We help feed, cloth and shelter the world.” We have the brains, some great technologies and hopefully the resources (again, competing might diminish this precious commodity) to solve the looming problems of feeding more people on less arable land with lower input of water and nutrients.
One cannot imagine anything more exciting than a food security session where science meets one of the greatest challenges in human history, feeding the world, now and in the future. Today’s session (Symposium III—21st Century Challenge: Feeding 9 Billion) commenced with a great introductory talk by UK Champion for Global Food Security, Professor Tim Benton. The severe environmental challenges if the 21st Century where defined, focusing on sustainability.
Some scary numbers and projections, in case you don’t remember, included:
- To keep up with the growing population we will have to produce more than we ever have
- Europe wastes more food than the entire Sub-Saharan region produces
- 40% of food in America is wasted
The importance of the next talk was picked up by Mother Nature herself, sending us a thunder loud enough to cause a moment of silence.
After this truly stimulating symposium we are all obliged to return back to our labs, homes, and workplaces to optimize either the genes, the environment, or the management side of the equation. After all, if we cannot contribute to the aforementioned, simply changing our cravings and diets is already of help.
Keeping in mind Jevons paradox, we have to start looking for solutions before it is too late. Efficiency gains no doubt provide us with time to make the entire economy more sustainable. Fundamentally we have to redefine the problem, divide it, and conquer it. Each one of us can make a difference so crucial and we are here to make another world after all.
And if one doesn’t believe me
Think of this
“If you think you’re too small to make a difference you haven’t spent a night with a mosquito.”
If this session doesn’t leave one inspired, I doubt anything will. I find myself vehemently eager to listen to the upcoming Part B concerning resilience.
I am writing this at quarter past midnight on day one of the #plantbiology14 American Society of Plant Biologists annual meeting and am trying to blog each day about my experiences/ perspective. Just know that this was written quickly because I need sleep for day 2!
I arrived what I thought was early this morning at the Oregon Convention center only to discover that the lines at the registration desk were already long and I first talked to two strangers in the last name R-Z line and then met someone I knew only from Twitter (@JPhilipTaylor) from Monsanto, which was cool and always fun. I got my transit pass, and t-shirt and put up my poster in the poster hall, got my free Quartzy networking cards (look pretty good, if big) and left some in an envelope by my poster as well as some 3×5 cards for people to leave me notes/ask questions or leave an answer to a question I wrote on one (this is an experiment to try and make my poster more interactive. The whole time, I tweeted. I found my way around the convention center, got a second cup of coffee, then some tea and went to the PUI networking event; a group of people who work at PUIs or are interested to work at one (if I can get an academic job, this is the kind of institution I’d want to work for; however, landing that academic job is hard/nigh impossible).
One thing that was brought up is that it’s not as possible to do the cutting edge research, the so called ‘hot’ areas that an R1 institution can and so that can make it harder to get funding and sustain a research program, let alone balance it with teaching. It’s complicated. I think this thought set off the theme of the day for me; just how kind of out in the cold from the rest of the research community PUI researchers (and they are researchers) can feel compared to the R1 system. PUIs provide a lot of grad students to R1 programs (I’m a product of one!).
The first talk fo the day was Harvey Millar, from Australia, and Stephen Hales prize winner (sorry if I have that wrong; no research tonight) talking in depth about plant respiration and mitochondria. Later in the session, Nathanael Johnson talked about how to solve the controversy over GMOs (and how it has little to do with the science/facts or even GMOs themselves). He talked about the solution being building trust, a community, a solid relationship (as Seth Godin might term it ‘the connection economy’) to bridge the gap.
Don Ort and others in the abiotic stress session talked about what could be summed up as ‘Winter is coming’ (climate change, higher CO2, more severe weather) and that will affect plant yields which is already a problem and will likely only get worse. Feeding 9 billion people is a challenge, a huge one and we need a strong community of plant scientists that can build trust with consumers of food/agriculture/plant products to solve it.
I ended the day at the iConnect Tweet up which was a lot of fun. We had most of the people who tweeted during the day there talking, connecting and bring taking pictures of people holding up pieces of paper about why they got into plant biology in as few words as possible (it was really great in the moment; and I think a really cool project ASPB should spread around the membership/collect pictures of us).
PUIs are still research institutions and can be the slow, steady, quieter ones doing research that isn’t necessarily rushed out the door (haste makes waste); more conscientious, instilling curiosity, learning and contributing to an environment of scientifically literate thinking. While R1s can focus more on the bleeding edge (PUIs can be collaborators here, no doubt) and really delve into the dynamism that is the plant world in a high throughput way (is there going to be a point where any grand funded absolutely must be systems biology level?). There does seem to be a divide, a disconnect right now, one that doesn’t serve the plant research community that well it seems to me (and perhaps I’m overstating things; I could be wrong here; one reason twitter is great, we can all share our perspectives).
I learned today that Monsanto and BASF collaborate on projects; using one another’s technological strengths to bring different products to market (ID your own target genes, but use one another’s technological expertise). I’m not sure how smooth theses collaborations are, but it seems like a very good way to better leverage resources. I don’t know if there’s an academic equivalent, but it would seem that there’s more that could be done to foster that kind of work (yes, I know, collaborations happen ALL the time; however, I think more could happen to share things with one another; I’d never heard of Harvey Millar & his many impressive collaborators until today; I’ve been too locked within my Ivory tower sub-discipline).
Twitter is great for broadening horizons, networking, and learning new things/getting feedback; as are many digital networking tools. And after today, I’m more convinced than ever that building a strong, interactive community is going to be one key to solving the problem of feeding the world and making our planet resilient/sustainable place to live for us, and our descendants; I went out to dinner today with people from Washington U. I did my Ph.D. with; most of them had kids, so do many people I know at Monsanto. One thing a lot of us have in common.
The first day of the ASPB meeting, 2014 included the major symposium on abiotic stress control in plants, presenting insights on the broad range of abiotic stress that impacts plants from extreme atmospheric conditions and availability of micronutrients; with discussions on recent experimental approaches in laboratory and fields to overcome those hurdles.
Dr. Michael F. Thomashow, the first speaker of the session talked a bit about his work on CBF pathway and cold acclimation of plants, the process by which plants increase their freezing tolerance in response to low non freezing temperature. Dr. Thomashow is acting as a director of MSU-DOE plant research laboratory at Michigan State University. CBF cold-response pathway is a highly conserved regulatory network comprising the CBF genes and the CBF regulons (CBF target genes) that impairs freezing tolerance. Expression of these regulons leads to increased levels of sugars and proteins with cryoprotective properties that can contribute to an increase in plant freezing tolerance. He also discussed about a new line of investigation studying photosynthetic acclimation to low temperature. When Arabidopsis and other chilling tolerant plants are exposed to low temperature, the rate of photosynthesis initially drops. In addition, the photosynthetic efficiency of leaves developed at low temperature is much greater than those developed at warm temperature. He talked about the photoperiod regulation of the CBF pathway and how that is regulated by PhyB under long and short period of days.
The second speaker of the session was Dr. Donald Ort, Robert Emerson Professor in Plant Biology and Crop Sciences Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, USDA/ARS Departments of Plant Biology and Crop Science, from the University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. He discussed about the gradual CO2 elevation, the elevated heat waves and effects. Human activities are altering the composition of our atmosphere (CO2 and O3), affecting the Earth’s climate system (elevated temperature and water deficits). High temperature is a cause of yield gap and can act directly by inhibiting photosynthetic processors. Dr. Ort discussed how his group is investigating the effects of atmospheric change on photosynthesis and canopy energy balance, as well as the interaction of increased atmospheric CO2 and drought.
After a refreshing coffee break Dr. Steve Howell, from Plant Sciences Institute, Iowa State University, spoke about their work on the Unfolded Protein Response (UPR) and how that can protect plants from stress. UPR acts as an alarm system when the plant senses harsh conditions. Different environmental stresses, such as heat stress and salt stress can activate different transcription factors and his group focus specially on factors responsible for untethering the stress transducers from the Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in response to stress, how they are transported from the ER to the Golgi apparatus, how they are proteolytically processed and relocated to the nucleus and participate in the formation of transcription complexes to activate target genes.
The session was concluded with an excellent speech from Dr. Mary Lou Guerinot, Ronald and Deborah Harris Professor and Associate Director, Dartmouth Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program, Dartmouth College Hanover. Her goal is to ultimately understand the functional connections between genes, proteins, metabolites and mineral ions. Out of more than 100000 EMS mutants they identified one mutant which is iron tolerant. As a result of the study her group hypothesized that plants might store irons in their vacuoles like yeast. As part of a multi-investigator project, Guerinot is using ICP-MS [inductively coupled spectroscopy-mass spectroscopy] nutrient, ionomics and trace element profiling as a tool to
Conferences are a great place to get feedback on your research from leaders in your field as well as other graduate students. They’re also great for networking and building a group of contacts that you can use for advice in the future. David Shiffman (PhD candidate at the University of Miami), shares tips and tricks for students to get the most out of a conference. Read David Shiffman’s full article.
- If you’re a graduate student in the sciences, you should try to attend scientific conferences (or at least one).
- Read ahead, e-mail ahead, and plan ahead to make sure you don’t miss anything at the conference you’re attending.
- If your conference has concurrent sessions, it’s ok to move between rooms.
- Prepare an “elevator speech.”
- Don’t eat alone.
- You should have business cards. Seriously.
- Don’t be afraid to approach senior/famous scientists.
- Look for people who look like they don’t know anybody.
- Be active on Twitter before, after, and during the conference.
- Planning ahead makes conferences more affordable.
We are hitting the road and heading to Portland for what is shaping up to be an amazing meeting. A team of volunteers and staff are working hard to make sure that the plant science community is as up-to-date and connected as possible both onsite and online, and we will be using the social web to do it. Here is a brief rundown of activities:
Include @ASPB and #PlantBiology14 in your tweets about Plant Biology 2014
Share your photos on Instagram and include @PlantBiology and #PlantBiology14 to get included in the main feed.
Check us out on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/myASPB
- Post to our wall to share your experience-@PlantBiology and #PlantBiology14
- Upload your photos, tag yourself and other attendees
- Start a discussion
- Check-in to events and places
- Get updates from ASPB all year at: facebook.com/ASPB
Upload your Convention videos to YouTube and tag them with #PlantBiology14 and don’t forget to tweet your link with #PlantBiology14.
Share your Convention experience and insights on your blog and tag the post with#PlantBiology14. Show us what you’ve got! Post links to your blog on the ASPB FaceBook wall and Tweet the links. We’ll pick our favorite blogger periodically and feature the blog on http://blog.aspb.org.
Join the iConnect Team
Join the iConnect with Plant Biology team at Plant Biology 2014! Contact Susan Cato or stop by the ASPB iConnect booth at the meeting.
Please share this information freely so we can rally the entire plant science community around the amazing science, education, and networking at Plant Biology 2014.
According to SportsGrass.com, “sports and athletic field grasses must have dense, thick sod, be able to withstand impact and have the ability to repair quickly…Each seed mixture is used for the desired traits that are dominant to its variety and whether it grows well with the companion species.”
And who makes sure this happens? Plant biologists and related turf management experts, of course. Here are some ‘grassroots’ reasons why world champions have a sporting chance once they step onto the green.
The grass at Wimbledon is considered a ‘living, breathing surface.’ To learn how the head groundskeepers keep it healthy and why a light-weight serve and volley specialist is a grass court expert’s favorite type of player, check out:
Digging deeper: Researchers at the Sports Turf Research Institute have built a ‘mini Wimbledon’ (as well as other mini venues) to study many factors including the use of pre-germinated seed, mowing heights, soil moisture, and surface firmness for optimal bounce.
The goal is to create grass that will “withstand a pounding and support the athletes.” So says, Steve Reid, research director for the company providing the grass for all of the pitches of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Here’s what’s growing on (those fields):
Why all the fuss and bother of maintaining natural grass when synthetic turf could even the playing field? Claire Dworsky, a 9-year-old soccer player and part-time UC Santa Clara scientist studies one angle of this debate as part of the American Geophysical Union’s Kids’ Science Challenge . Read more in Science and soccer: They’re both child’s play
The US Open ended in mid-June in North Carolina. The 143rd Open Championship tees off in July in England. The 96th PGA Championship takes to the bluegrass of Kentucky in August. And Scotland hosts the 40th Ryder Cup in September. How do course managers know what’s best for all these environments? They rely on programs like the Penn State Center for Turfgrass Science for research, advice, professional networks, and career development opportunities that support turf scientists specializing in golf courses.
It’s no small issue that golf literally covers a lot of ground. It has significant impact on the environment. So The Golf Environment Awards program seeks environmentally sustainable course management projects. There are three annual awards for twelve nominated finalists: ‘Environmental Golf Course of the Year’, ‘Conservation Greenskeeper of the Year’ and ‘Outstanding Environmental Project of the Year’. According to the award’s website, ‘Each entry is independently judged, not on the scale of project or financial investment, but on what the golf club has achieved and how it has benefited or is benefiting the environment.’
Baseball fans relish their home stadiums. Many things contribute to this loyalty. But the sights, smells, and performance of the stars all hinge on the specific and creative techniques that turf managers plow into each beautiful green diamond and outfield. These major leaguers get to the Big Show from programs like the:
- University of Tennessee Plant Sciences –Turfgrass Science and Management
- Purdue University Turfgrass Science
“Studying turf science has greatly extended my knowledge of agriculture and has prepared me for a job that allows me to spend my days at the ballpark. It doesn’t get much better than that,” says turf scientist Joey Stevenson.
And if YOU are watching Major League baseball this season, you may wish to check out The Grass Is Always Greener to learn which turfs are selected for each of the professional playing fields and why.
You can scout sports grass stats from a member of your team (#PlantBiology). Check out Turfgrass Biology, Genetics, and Breedingedited by Michael D. Casler, Ronny R. Duncan (John Wiley & Sons, Jan 30, 2003).
25 Years of the Kay Laboratory (1989–2014)
BY PRATEEK TRIPATHI
ASPB Student Ambassador, University of Southern California
“The greatest thing of the past 25 years was the absolute privilege to know my present and past lab members. These people are good human beings: smart, funny, weird, goofy, tall, short…such a diverse group of uniformly intelligent men and women. Most of all, I just enjoyed the company of people of this caliber, and to see them go on and thrive is the greatest joy of all.”
—Dr. Steve A Kay
Dean, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences
The Kay Symposium was celebrated May 30, 2014, honoring Steve Kay’s 25 years of successful chronobiology research. The silver jubilee of the Kay Laboratory was hosted at University Park Campus, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. This one-day event of scientific talks covered the past, present, and future of chronobiology research across disciplines. Steve’s research has focused on plants, flies, and mammals. He started his lab in 1989 at Rockefeller University, and since then he has pioneered many groundbreaking discoveries in circadian biology. Apart from great discoveries, another significant contribution of his research over the past 25 years has been providing successful mentorships. The people trained in his lab are successful scientists in their independent capacities, who are now committed to passing the baton of scientific learning to the coming generation. Eminent guests of the symposium included Joanne Chory, Joe Ecker, Elliot Meyerowitz, Susan Golden, John Mullet, Frank Doyle III, and Peter Schultz.
The guests and speakers gathered from across the world to congratulate Steve for his successful journey. His lab alumni didn’t hesitate to carve time from their busy schedules to attend this special occasion. From his first graduate student and postdoc to present lab members, they gathered together to make the event remarkable.
I asked Steve what drives him in the field of chronobiology. Being nostalgic, he shared memories of his undergraduate years when his professor, Dr. Trevor Griffiths at the University of Bristol, asked him to investigate how light influences the developmental processes of plants. He recalls that in those days he never realized the dynamics with which plants modulate these developmental phenomena. This sparked his interest, and he was curious to answer the question.
I asked Steve what he thought would be the next big thing in plant biology. He replied, “Well, the next big thing is deep versus wide.” In his view, we should be very clear where we need to go deep and where we need to go wide. He firmly believes that since we don’t have the legacy of multiple models organisms/species in plant biology, we still should go deeper to harness our only reference, Arabidopsis. In his opinion, we are still struggling to solve the enigma of plant cellular dynamics. In our hunger to translate our current understanding, we must rethink where we need to go deep and where we need to go wide. He recalls the legendary example of the CO-FT module describing flowering mechanism (which came from his lab): “Today, the CO-FT module is active to all crop and noncrop plants and species, which was first described in Arabidopsis. In order to link the phenotype to genotype with understanding of detailed dynamics, we still need to persevere and still need to
drill down the model plant system. We need to agree to focus on a developing knowledge base that will help us quickly determine the low-hanging fruit that we get by doing deep sequencing that gives various levels of omics information. So, the problem is that there is a temptation to abandon the in-depth hypothesis-driven knowledge base. Thus, it is time for all of us to raise our voices unequivocally for more investment in basic science research.”
When asked for a message to the incoming generation of researchers, Steve summarized the present situation about extended learning with high expectations and decreasing opportunities. Thus, the most competitive postdocs should integrate different approaches, develop deep knowledge, and show core skill sets. “You have to be a Renaissance man or woman,” he remarked. He also advocated the idea of training grad students and postdocs beyond scientific learning and publishing good papers—by equipping them with skills that prepare them to be adaptable.