WOMEN IN PLANT BIOLOGY

Teams and Genes

Team Management

Once upon a time, a single scientist could carry out a research project on her (or his) own. But those days are long gone. These days, teams of scientists are the norm. A team comprises a mix of older and younger scientists, sometimes from different departments or universities. Usually, though, the team members are almost clonal; they all have similar backgrounds, interests, and goals. Even worse, they think the same thoughts. These teams are easy to manage and may achieve their goals, but the outcomes can be narrow and the biological and agricultural significance limited.

At present, teams are rarely led by women, a historical situation that should change as the proportion of women in science increases and the average age of women scientists increases. Will women manage teams differently from men?

There are three ways of managing teams: consensus, democracy, and dictatorship. With consensus, everyone agrees. With democracy, everyone has a say or vote and the view of the majority prevails—an arrangement liked by the majority but not necessarily the minority. With dictatorship, the team leader makes all major decisions, maybe after consultation with selected team members.

The consensus approach may be more attractive to women than to men. It has the happy outcome of general agreement within the team, but it takes more time and patience than the other two approaches. The more diverse the team, the slower the decision-making process, and some team members may become impatient.

Delegation of important tasks and decisions is an attribute of successful team management, but it is likely to occur only with democratic management styles. I have noticed that both consensus managers and dictators find it difficult to delegate, for completely different reasons—the fomer to keep everyone happy, and the latter to keep control.

Teams of Genes

Genes work in teams; the activity of any one gene requires the cooperation of a suite of other genes. This means that altering the expression of one gene may not significantly affect plant growth or metabolism, even if it is a transcription factor. Identifying and removing one limiting factor to a plant process can reveal a limitation by another factor. An example at the whole-plant level is temperature and light: Raising the temperature can make a plant grow faster, but the light level may have to be raised to provide sufficient photosynthate for the faster growth. At the cell level an example is ion transport rate and proton pumps: Upregulating an ion transporter such as a sodium–proton exchanger may increase the rate of sodium transport across a membrane, but the proton pumps will have to work faster to maintain the difference in proton concentration that drives the exchanger. Whether ion transport is limited by the activity of the transporter or the regeneration of the proton gradient is difficult to know, but it is obvious that one cannot work without the other.

Transgenic experiments often have disappointing results. Transformation with genes to synthesize compatible solutes or osmolytes can result in only low solute accumulation and have little or no effect on growth of plants in dry or saline soil. Explanations lie at the biochemical level: The failure of proline to accumulate in response to overexpression of a proline-synthesizing gene can be due to feedback inhibition, and the failure of glycine betaine to accumulate can be due to a lack of the precursor choline. The solution has been to modify the proline-synthesizing gene in the one case and to upregulate the synthesis of choline in the other. However, this might only reveal another limitation farther up the biosynthetic chain, or it might reveal a limitation at a higher level of organization—the whole plant. For example, organic solute production might be limited by the rate of carbon supply, as stomates close to maintain leaf water status in dry or saline soil and supply of photosynthate falls accordingly.

The effects of altered expression of a single gene might also be felt down the biochemical chain and on other interacting genes. Microarray analyses show that the expression of one gene affects the expression of many other genes. This might be expected if the mutation is in a signaling pathway, but not if it is a very specific transporter. Yet a knock-out mutant in a sodium–proton exchanger changed expression of hundreds of genes. These results indicate that ion exchangers may play important roles in ion or pH homeostasis, as well as salt tolerance, and be part of a metabolic network.

Team Effectiveness

In my experience, the most effective teams of people are those in which there is much networking, interaction, and mutual trust. The team leaders who are remembered fondly and with respect by their students and colleagues are those who have mentored young scientists and made sure that individual efforts are recognized and not lost in a large project. Large projects are now common, as solutions to major problems require extensive resources in terms of people and equipment.

A major agricultural or environmental problem is not going to be solved by a bunch of people working in a laboratory, no matter how good the team. It will be solved only if the laboratory studies are integrated with work at the actual source of the problem. For example, if we are searching for genes that will enable a plant to adapt better to drought or salinity, our work will provide useful solutions only if it is done with an understanding of the actual problem and in conjunction with plant breeders or agronomists working on the problem in the field. Feedback from these people will tell us that we cannot simulate drought by growing plants in polyethylene glycol or leaving them to dry on a bench. And we cannot simulate soil salinity by dunking the plant roots in high concentrations of NaCl and measuring changes that occur before they die.

Useful solutions to major problems are perhaps beyond the ability of any one team in isolation and require cooperation between teams, or with individuals working in other agencies closer to the source of the problem. My team members (like the other scientists I work closely with) are individuals from different backgrounds, ranging from physiology to biochemistry, molecular genetics, and molecular biology. We have essential links to field-based scientists (breeders and agronomists) and to farmers who support our research efforts and offer their farms for research trials. To contribute to solving society’s problems, we need to ensure that our laboratory’s work is directly connected with the people who will use the products of our research.

To operate effectively within such complex frameworks requires a whole range of skills that are not taught in science courses and that do not come easily to most of us, female or male. These include personal communication skills such as listening, tact, consideration, and acknowledgment of other people’s efforts. We all have to work hard at acquiring the skills that are necessary for effective teamwork.

Rana Munns
rana.munns@csiro.au