Not only do I nurture superb science students--by demanding hard work in class and excellent research work in my lab--I have grown a creative, forward-looking research program. The person who nominated me for the Gordon Research Conference Chair summarized my qualifications as “she is a real thinker...and she reads the literature”. I have often been funded in the high-risk-high-reward category in federal grant programs, as my research ideas are ahead of the curve. Being ahead of the curve has been a disadvantage at times; I find the scientific publication peer review process to be a barrier to dissemination of novel results and new experimental designs. However, some editors have been very supportive, with comments such as
“...found the manuscript to report on a very innovative and interesting study. I agree with their assessment – I found the work to be very interesting, and this subject matter will be a welcome contrast to the more reductionist studies that normally appear.”
I remain underwhelmed by the ultimate impact of most published results relative to the time it takes to do extensive experimentation and write comprehensive manuscripts. I think that one reason we still have a thriving, lively scientific meeting culture is that most scientists learn new science from personal contact, in a focused setting meant for information sharing, rather than from outdated literature reports. Analysis method development and model system development may have more potential to influence how science progresses than specific publications, and data analysis is still slower than it should be. Thus I have devoted substantial time to creating a biology cyberinfrastructure for data analysis—democratizing access to computing for everyone, at both large and small institutions, from undergraduates to senior faculty.