WOMEN IN PLANT BIOLOGY

Academia, Industry, Government—Which One Will It Be?
by Pat Okubara
Research Geneticist (Plants), Washington State University, pokubara@wsu.edu

While considering what to write for this article, I took the chance to mentally review over 30 years of experience in plant biology. Long ago, I recognized that my career path had not been predictable; rather, it had been defined by circumstance, opportunity, and plain determination. It is what the English refer to as “chequered”—a patchwork of research projects first undertaken as an undergraduate, then as a technician in an academic laboratory and in industry, later as a graduate student, still later as a postdoctoral associate in both academia and government, and finally as a USDA–Agricultural Research Service scientist and adjunct faculty member at a university.

Academia, the private sector, and government—all three research venues have attractions. The academic setting was and still is the most familiar to me, as it likely is for many of you. Immediately upon graduation, I began working full-time as a technician in a plant molecular biology lab at the same university that granted my bachelor’s degree, originally planning to work for two years before returning for a medical degree. Research in plant molecular biology proved to be a turning point, as the excitement of discovery at the bench, doing biology at the molecular level, and a growing appreciation for the uniqueness of plants became too compelling to abandon, even after four years.

In an academic setting, intellectual resources and expertise are comprehensive, and facilities generally are not limiting. Information abounds, and so does the knowledge to make sense of it—so long as you think, read, knock on office doors, and send e-mail queries. This setting is relatively informal. Seminars and opportunities to meet with visiting scientists should not be taken for granted, however, as these are not always commonplace in other venues. One-on-one conversations with visiting researchers are an educational experience for which there is no substitute. One of the drawbacks of academia was and still is the impermanent nature of research projects that are dependent on extramural funding. Although my postdoctoral positions had finite terms, they were as “real” as any job, deserving the best I could give.

For personal reasons, I made the jump from a staff position at a major university into the private sector, doing research in maize transformation in a biotechnology division of a national chemical company. The biotech division resembled a small start-up company. The caveat to this experience was that it took place decades ago, when biotechnology sometimes was described as the solution to chemicals and even to field research. It defied reason how manipulating fragments of DNA could replace or even predict how the whole plant would perform and interact with biotic and abiotic factors in the field. Nevertheless, it was immensely exciting to be part of a new wave in plant biology.

Research in industry came with unique opportunities. Project managers and fellow researchers were less concerned about the degree one held than about one’s willingness and ability to do the work. The outcome of this philosophy was that I managed or collaborated on several projects and frequently gave talks and tours to shareholders and management personnel not familiar with the technical aspects of the work. (The requisite skills can, of course, be applied in explaining one’s research to bewildered family members.) Each of us attended national meetings on behalf of the entire research group. At these meetings, I faced the obvious viewpoint that industry scientists, who generally did not disclose their own research findings, should not be privy to hard-gained information from others. Perversely, this served to increase my determination to go to meetings. I eventually became acquainted with other regular attendees and gained familiarity with new areas in plant biology.

One highlight of these meetings was a two-minute informal conversation with Dr. Barbara McClintock right before one of the sessions. At the time, she would have been about 80 years old. She was intensely honest. She did not ski but came prepared for a hike and told me she could no longer work with the microscope. This was a jolt to a young scientist who had not yet paused to think about how physical changes could cause one to give up what one loved. What did she do, then? Well, she adapted by relying on others for this part of her research, a solution to which I now fully subscribe. The fact that she had given an impressive keynote address and was full of vitality, exuding great mental strength and determination, was vastly uplifting.

Unlike in academia, projects in industry were formulated in part on shareholders’ and investors’ interests. Projects had definite timelines or benchmarks and could be dropped without much notice. The competition from other laboratories was intense, and one always had the feeling of having fewer resources than the next biotechnology group. However, the overriding benefit was working as part of an enthusiastic team toward a common, agriculturally based objective and working to develop new technologies that would influence the applied sciences.

In contrast, research in a federal agency is more long term. As a USDA–ARS scientist, I have had complete freedom to develop a research program, albeit within the context of a broader objective or “mission.” Surprisingly, the research is not entirely applied. My program has applied objectives, but we are doing basic research designed to provide knowledge that will enable applied objectives. As in industry, there are mentoring, education, and outreach components to the job. A USDA scientist is accountable to taxpayers, who essentially fund the position, and to the executive branch of the U.S. government. In other words, there are more forms, paperwork, and protocols than in the other research venues. A federal laboratory might be situated on or near a campus and contained within a separate facility. In this case, some effort is needed to get to seminars and maintain connections with the rest of the campus. It has been said that working in the USDA–ARS is part research and part business, and in my view it combines the best of academia and industry.

Some of you might have chosen a research focus early in your career and have had or will have the opportunity to stay within this area. At the end of your career, you will be able to point to a body of work and say, “This is my contribution.” My one minor regret for having a checkered career is that I am not able to do this . . . yet. However, I do not think it is too late. Given the benefit of hindsight, I see that all of my career decisions brought me in contact with diverse, talented scientists and have led to enhancing, life-building experiences.

This is an outstanding time to be a plant biologist. Projects have moved toward the interdisciplinary and collaborative, so the researcher can address broader questions. Academia, the private sector, or government… it’s your choice. The elements of conducting research in all three settings are the same: high-quality science, commitment to immediate objectives, understanding of the bigger picture, and a mind always to the biology underlying the data.

View past columns of Women in Plant Biology at http://www.aspb.org/newsletter/wipb.cfm.