Dr Amy Wong is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology at The University of Toronto. She became a PI in 2019 with a lab hosted at the Hospital for Sick Children, 10 years after starting her Postdoc. She is a pioneer in using human stem cells to model lung development and disease.
Listening to our conversation will prompt your thinking:
Read the blog inspired by our conversation:
https://tesselledevelopment.com/research-lives-and-cultures/amy-wong
Dr Amy Wong is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology at The University of Toronto. She became a PI in 2019 with a lab hosted at the Hospital for Sick Children, 10 years after starting her Postdoc. She is a pioneer in using human stem cells to model lung development and disease.
Listening to our conversation will prompt your thinking:
Read the blog inspired by our conversation:
https://tesselledevelopment.com/research-lives-and-cultures/amy-wong
Warning- getting a perfect transcript is hard. This transcript may have mistakes. Be kind to us by accepting these potential errors. I hope that the transcript is helpful to some of you! Apologies in advances for any mistakes in the transcript.
*****
Dr. Sandrine Soubes: All right, let's make a start.
[music]
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, dear listeners. It's Sandrine Soubes, your podcast host. You're on the Research Lives and Cultures. Today, I have the pleasure to have somebody who comes from Canada, Dr. Amy Wong. Welcome on the podcast, Amy.
Dr. Amy Wong: Thank you so much for having me.
Sandrine: It's a pleasure. Amy, you are an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, and you currently work in the Laboratory of Medicine and Pathobiology. You're actually based in a hospital, if I understand that correctly, in the Hospital for Sick Children. Is that right?
Amy: That's correct. I'm a scientist. My primary appointment is through the Hospital of Sick Children. I'm a scientist here. I started my lab in March of 2019. I'm an early career investigator, as most people would call it. [laughs] I also have an appointment at the University of Toronto, assistant professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology.
Sandrine: Two different locations for the work that you do?
Amy: Yes. My lab is really housed or based at the Hospital for Sick Children. My appointment through the university allows me to teach undergrads and graduate students and have graduate students in my lab at SickKids to do most of the basic laboratory research here at SickKids.
Sandrine: That sounds amazing. Maybe let's get started in hearing about the early years in research. How did you start your scientific life?
Amy: My scientific life, I think [laughs] started very, very early on when I was a child. I became very interested in science very early on. My background is Chinese. I have mixed Laotian blood in me, but I'm pretty much Asian. I'm Chinese. If you know anything about the Chinese culture and the parents of Chinese culture, they always raise their children to be one of three things, [laughs] medical doctors, engineers, or lawyers.
From the very early on in life, I've always been, I wouldn't say, brainwashed, but encouraged to go into a scientific career with the hopes of becoming a medical doctor, not a scientist [chuckles] or research scientist. In school, I've always been very focused on trying to develop my scientific career, even as an early child in school.
My real love for passion, or passion for science, came from a high school teacher, Mr. Gregory. I don't know where he is right now, but he was one of those teachers who really loved teaching biology. He came to class always with positive energy. He didn't care if the Grade 9 students didn't care about his class, [chuckles] but he was very much into it, very much wanting to teach us everything about the cells and the anatomy of small animals that we would learn in that class. He very much looked like Albert Einstein. I've always attributed Mr. Gregory as Albert Einstein. Every time I went to class, I was very intrigued by getting a lesson from Albert Einstein, [chuckles] even though he's not Albert Einstein.
Mr. Gregory's passion for biology, I think, really rubbed off on me. It was really in his class that I realized that I think I do want a career in science. At that time, probably it was more focused towards a career as a medical doctor, but eventually, that scientific path would lead me to a career as a research scientist. That switch, I would say, came about when I did my undergrad research project. It's a fourth-year research project course at the University of Toronto, in the same department, LMP. You learn that you can actually do an internship during the academic year with some of these scientists that are affiliated with university or at the University of Toronto.
It was through a lecture from a well-known cardiologist, Dr. Bradley Strauss, that he gave to one of our classes about vascular remodeling and restenosis that I became really intrigued with his work and wanted to be involved with the research a bit and get to know a little bit about scientific research. I approached him after his lecture and said, " Hey, I really am very interested in this. Is there an opportunity for me to volunteer or participate in summer internship program in your lab?" He said, "Send me your resume." [laughs] I did. Luckily, he accepted me for a summer internship in his lab.
I was so fascinated by so much to learn in that field, so much questions that needed solutions, and that I could potentially contribute to it if I wanted to go into medical research. I did my summer research internship with Brad. It was very fruitful. I learned so much about research. It's nothing like what we learned in the classrooms in undergrad. [laughs] Those research courses where everything is designed and the question is there, and basically, the solution is also designed for you, so you just have to go and do it. In the real world, it's very different. [laughs] You have a problem, and then you have to design the experiments to solve that problem.
I really much enjoyed that. For someone who really loves problem-solving, it really connected with me. It really clicked with me that I think my career is going to go down a different route, and not to medical school, but towards a PhD in medical research.
Sandrine: Did you then carry on with him for your PhD, or did you--?
Amy: That's a good question. I loved my internship so much that I actually decided to stay on as a master's student and a graduate student in Brad Strauss, and basically continue on the project that I started in the summer. I learned very early on that some scientific discoveries don't happen in three months. [laughs] It takes time. I stayed on as a master's student for two years with Brad Strauss and published a few papers with him. Then after that, I decided that I needed to take a break because I still wasn't sure whether perhaps I should go try medical school at this point or pursue a PhD. Either way, it was going to be a commitment once I decide whichever path I take, and so I wanted to just take some time off to think about it. PhD at the time was four years, medical school is four years. Either way, I'm going to lose four years, [laughs] or need to invest four years of my life.
I took about eight months off and helped a fellow who came to Brad's lab to learn some specific assays that I was helping him out with when I was a graduate student. He was based out of UHN, University Health Network in Toronto. I took eight months to really join his team and help him out, finish the projects that he started. It was there that I realized Brad's work was a lot on the vascular cardiovascular system, the work I did with his fellow was more on the heart and heart regeneration.
I learned that this area was very dominating. There was just so much research and so many great scientists in that particular field that was doing so much really cool stuff, particularly in the area of stem cells and how stem cells could be used to regenerate the heart. I wondered whether, if stem cells could be used to regenerate the heart, could we also use stem cells to regenerate other organs?
I started to look at other systems or other organs, the liver and the lung specifically. I eventually learned that the lung is a very, very complicated organ, and there's interest in using stem cells to regenerate the areas when there's lung disease. This area or this field was very, very new. Compared to the heart and the vascular system for the lung, it was very, very new, and there weren't as many publications out there looking into this. I thought, perhaps this is where I can make a difference or make an impact.
I seeked out some thoracic surgeons and clinician-scientists at UHN to see if there would be an opportunity for me to practice really a PhD in their labs. I stumbled across a young investigator at that time, Dr. Tom Waddell. Very young investigator, very keen, very ambitious. We're all ambitious when we're young. [laughs] Proposed to him the idea of, how about let us try to see if the stem cells, particularly the stem cells in the bone marrow, if there is any contribution of these stem cells in area regeneration after lung disease or even after lung transplantation?
Naively, I wrote a proposal to him because his lab was not actually focused on stem cells and lung regeneration. He, at the time, had a lab, a small lab focused on sugar molecules that are involved in transplant rejections. When you transplant a pig organ into a human, for example. He was very much invested in research on transplant rejection. I wrote this proposal [laughs] and I dropped it off at Tom's office, and I said, "This is what I'm proposing to do. I want to study the role of the bone marrow, and see if there's any cells in the bone marrow that might contribute to area regeneration after area injury, and this is how I plan to do that, A, B, C." I think I had him at that. [laughs]
Sandrine: Yes, it's funny because you said that you took some time off, but it doesn't sound like time off at all. [laughs]
Amy: [laughs] Yes.
Sandrine: In a way, what I think is really interesting about it is that you gave yourself permission to think really deeply about something, because so often, people at the end of their degree or their master, they so much want to jump into a PhD and not lose any time. Actually, you didn't do this, you really paused. When you say you took time off, I thought maybe she went traveling, or I don't know, but actually, you paused within the space of giving yourself permission to really think deeply.
Amy: Exactly.
Sandrine: In a way, almost defining the research space that you wanted to be in. It's funny because earlier today, I had a conversation with another academic who works also in stem cell research. I was asking the question, how do you go about defining your research niche? This idea of the research niche is something that people often at the end of their postdoc or at the end of several postdocs, they try to figure out actually what their research niche, but in a way, you were already defining this.
Amy: That's correct.
Sandrine: At the point of actually designing your PhD project.
Amy: Exactly. I knew very early on that for me to make or create my own niche, I need to be very different from anywhere that I go train at. That, hence my decision to join Tom's lab. I knew he was an early career investigator, I knew he was young, but he was just as ambitious as I was, and he was willing to take the risk. I joined his lab and did a fantastic four-year PhD with him, and we published meanwhile. I made a lot of friends in the thoracic research world.
Then, I'll fast forward to the ending of my PhD where I now needed to make my next decision as to what to do next. [chuckles] By this point, medical school was no longer an interest for me. I knew very much that I wanted to stick in micro research. I went into his lab wanting to understand the potential role of stem cells in area regeneration. I knew from the four years of being in his lab, understanding stem cell biology was one of the areas that I was missing in my training, and not fully understanding it well enough to really make it a big part of my research program when I wanted to have my own lab.
I had a discussion with Tom, and I was offered position to stay on, not as a postdoc, but-- Well, perhaps as a postdoc, and I eventually transitioned into my own independent lab within that group. I knew that for me to really take advantage of this opportunity to learn more and really build my own niche, if you will, I needed to go somewhere where I can learn everything about stem cell biology.
I looked into Harvard. Obviously, that was one of the epicenters of stem cell research, but I also looked local. The reason for that was really due to family reasons. Everyone likes to say, "Scientists need to be mobile, and they need to go to different research institutes, and different cities, and even different countries to learn what they need to learn, and then presumably, bring back what they have learned," but I find that it's true. At the same time, you don't necessarily need to leave to learn everything you need to learn and create your own unique niche, and so that I ultimately decided to stay in Toronto because I interviewed or had a discussion with Dr. Janet Rossant, who's the leading [unintelligible 00:14:17] and stem cell biologist in the world.
I remember vividly meeting with her at SickKids or in the MaRS tower, where her lab was based. I remember sitting with her in the cafeteria on the couch. She looked at me and I said, "Janet, I really would love to train with you, but part of me feels that if I was to stay in Toronto, it would be a huge mistake for my career." She said, "It's not where you go train, it's how you make of it," and that was it. That was my deciding factor. I decided to stay in Toronto and I trained with her, and at that time, Dr. James Ellis as well to do my postdoc.
The reason why I had two mentors was when all the stem cell biology aspect, and maybe in the end, early development aspect, I was going to learn from Janet. Then Dr. James Ellis was one of the two labs at the time who was working on these new stem cells called induced pluripotent stem cells. He was one of the two labs that was able to make these stem cells in his research lab, and then use it to study various aspects of stem cell biology. I wanted the combination of both Dr. Ellis and Dr. Rossant as mentors to really help create this, ultimately this research niche that I was going to build for myself. That is to use these stem cell models to understand development in human lung diseases, and hopefully find new therapies, which is what my lab is doing right now.
When I first talked to Janet and James, I was very adamant. I said, "I'm going to join your labs, but I'm only going to do a two-year postdoc." That was very naive of me [laughs] to think that was possible. 10 years later, [laughs] I would eventually secure my own research or get promoted to a scientist position here at SickKids. I have started my own research lab, but I would say, the 10 years of my postdoc, which eventually transitioned into a research associate role, which gave me more leeway to actually help manage the lab. That's what is eventually what I did, was I helped Janet manage her lab, which includes managing people and understanding all the nuances of running a lab.
I think it's the reason why I got the position I have today was I was already very well prepared to start my own independent research lab. I created my research program that was independent of Janet. I secured research grants that was independent of Janet. It wasn't Janet's name on it, it was my name on the research grants. That's ultimately why I think I got the position that I have. Now, three years later, I am running a research lab of 13 staff and trainees.
Sandrine: What would be interesting to hear from you is that you had a really long period as a postdoc. What made you decide to stick to it in terms of being a postdoc because some people may have decided, "Actually, I've just had enough of being a postdoc, I'm just going to move to another institution and apply for funding and build my own research team." What was for you the logic of staying a long time as a postdoc?
Amy: Yes, that's a great question. There were many factors that played into that. First, shortly after publishing my first paper with Janet and James in 2012, I got married and had a baby. That was no longer an option to leave the city or the country to find another secondary postdoc, which apparently is becoming the norm, where people do multiple postdocs as opposed to one. With a husband who had a job that was not conducive to relocating, it became a choice for me, whether I ask him to move with me and find another job. At that time, he was also trying to build his career. Or I stay and I pivot.
With a little small child and my family here in Toronto, I ultimately decided to stay in Toronto because I understood, children when you are a young family, having family, other grandparents and aunts and uncles here to support is very important. It really helped my husband and I tremendously. That's one reason why I stayed in Toronto.
The second reason was, I was working on another project after my first publication, that I was very much interested in that was direct reprogramming. I had put on the back burner because I went on maternity leave, and did all this mother stuff. [laughs] I also very much enjoyed the research I was doing with Janet. I still felt like I had a lot more to contribute. She was very kind in promoting me into a Research Associate position, and ultimately, Senior Research Associate position. Then ultimately, a Senior Research Associate People Manager position, which ultimately is the highest level of, I guess, training that you would get at SickKids before you actually become a PI.
The route is not to eventually end up as a PI. I don't think that's the traditional route. I think it's just to really support those who are very much qualified but are not a PI. Because of that, I was able to essentially help manage her lab. That gave me a lot of training opportunity to learn all the nuances of how to run a research lab, including managing people, budgeting, financing, writing grants, all of these that I can do under her umbrella, without risking anything. [laughs]
Sandrine: It's a really interesting transition because it's a way of actually being a PI, but in mitigating the risk because you still have a senior academic working with you. I'm interested because in three years, your lab has actually grown extremely quickly. Can you share something about it in term of the rapid transition from, "Okay, I'm a very experienced postdoc working with somebody," to suddenly, "I'm running a factory of PhD student, master's, and so on."
Amy: [laughs] Yes, that's good point. When I was helping Janet, I was a research associate in her lab and helping run, especially the lung program in the lab. I already hired my first tech under that umbrella. I was already managing my first tech and training her in everything I needed to or she needed to know, to help me run my lab as I transition hopefully in finding a new position somewhere in Toronto. That was pretty easy. Again, having Janet as a senior mentor, really shielding me from any risks associated with that was really helpful.
Then, part of the reason of the success is I had already been trained to know how to run a research lab, so when I got my position in March 2019, I just hit the ground running. I didn't have this learning curve. I didn't need to figure out how to budget suddenly. I didn't need to figure out who to hire and train them to do the experiments while I write research grants. All of that was already put in place by the time I started my position.
By the time I started my position, I had two techs actually, and I had few undergrad students who was in Janet's lab and then wanted to move over and do work in my lab because they were more interested, I guess, in the lung stem cell work. I was able to quickly hire my first PhD student at that time, and several undergrads who had worked with me through the academic year.
Yes, I built my lab really quickly, [laughs] but part of the success really is the fact that I had the right people in place when I started my lab to do the work while I write research grants. I was very lucky because part of training under Janet's umbrella, I was involved in many other grant writing, and so when I had to write my own research grants, I was quite successful at them, and so with funding, I'm able to hire more people. Now, I have run a lab of 13 people, graduate students, techs, so staff and postdocs.
Sandrine: I'd be interested to hear about the way that you negotiated with her, because she, from what you said, she was a very supportive supervisor, PI. I don't know how you define her for yourself. What I'm interested in hearing from you is about the the type of conversation that you had with your PI, because obviously, having spent so many years working together, projects are very in intertwined. When the time comes for you to write your own grant and say, "Okay, actually, that's my stuff now." What was it like, and what were the challenges in having these conversations?
Amy: I was very lucky because Janet has always said from the very get-go, and her and I had always had the understanding that everything that I bring to the table in terms of ideas for the lung project would be mine. I would take it with me wherever I go. She's a very hardcore developmental and stem cell biologist who has built her career on early embryo development, and so the later part of embryo development, which is the organ development, she basically let whoever postdoc was studying those particular areas take on those projects with them wherever they go.
We have always had a very transparent relationship, honest and open. That's why I highly encourage to everyone, to have that transparency very early on and set the stage of, "This is what I want to do and this is where I want to go when I'm done, and would you support me?" Janet and James, actually, has both been very supportive of those types of discussions with me early on, that I was able to very freely and openly pursue opportunities that would let me explore ideas under their umbrella.
When it came time to starting my own research program, it was another discussion where I said, "Okay, now I'm getting this position, do we still agree that this is something I could take with me?" She said, "Yes, absolutely, Amy. You built this in my lab, this belongs to you. You can take it with you, and I'll step back from it." Again, having those open, transparent conversations with your mentor is extremely important and something I highly encourage to everyone at the early stage of their career. It doesn't have to be postdoc years, it could be PhD years, which is another thing, where with Tom, I have always had those types of conversations with him as well. When you have that transparency, there's nothing to hide and there's nothing to worry, and it's not a stress no longer. You can really put all that energy into exploring. [laughs]
Sandrine: I think that's a really important point is that, when you were leaving, you had, again, the conversation because again, it's about not making assumption. We may have had a conversation early on when we started-
Amy: Absolutely.
Sandrine: -working together, but at the point of transition, again, revisiting, "Okay, are we all on the same page still now, as I'm leaving your team and setting up my own group?"
Amy: Absolutely.
Sandrine: Often, I think that's one of the challenges. We may have had early conversation, but things have moved on, changed, and if we don't revisit it, we may make assumptions on how the other person is thinking about stuff.
Amy: Absolutely, but if you have these conversations often, it's not as daunting at the end of the day when you have that final conversation, because you've already had these types of discussion leading up to it. Yes, I encourage having discussions, open discussion often. [chuckles]
Sandrine: It feels like you had really a deep sense of what you wanted to do, a sense of confidence that you had in the way that you approach your research career, how did you build this? Because some people, maybe amazing scientist, but they don't really have that sense of self-belief that their ideas are the right ideas or to just go for it. We see that a lot in term of the transition of many women in research where they may do amazing work, but they're not putting themselves out there.
I'm asking this question because on your website or the university website, there is a term where, I don't know whether it's you who wrote it or somebody from the marketing department. It says that you are a pioneer in using human stem cells to model lung development disease. That term, being a pioneer, is really a way of positioning yourself, really standing your ground of what you're about. Often, I do a lot of coaching with academics and early career academics and postdoc, and holding the space of saying, "Okay, that's who I am. That's what I'm interested. These are the competencies I have," can be really hard for many. In your case, how did you create that space where you said, you had the confidence to just be who you are?
Amy: Yes, [laughs] that's a very good question. Something about me is I am not-- I take any obstacles or challenges that come my way as an opportunity to learn and to pivot and to get around those obstacles. I don't let them set me back. If anything, I come back stronger and I come back smarter. [chuckles] When I first started the lab we developed, so we, as in Dr. Ellis and Dr. Rossant and myself, and in collaboration with many other collaborators, Dr. Christine Bear, Dr. Felix Ratjen on that nature biotech paper, that would eventually be the first pivotal paper that would spearhead my career essentially. That was the paper where we showed for the first time, a method to generate bona fide lung epithelial cells that we can use to model cystic fibrosis and dish from these stem cells.
There had been lots of previous work prior to that, but to get to the cells that we really want to study, CF disease in vitro, and then hopefully use it to find a new therapy for each individual patient with CF with seminal work that really, like I said, spearheaded my research. I knew at that time when I published that work and it was accepted in Nature Biotech, of course, with a lot of revisions and critical constructive feedback [laughs] from my peers, I knew at that time I was onto something. That, I think, paper really built the confidence that I needed to move forward and start my career doing what I'm doing that's listed on my website.
Through that whole process, my whole training process, I was been faced with many obstacles that told me no. I've doubted myself, certainly, [laughs] many, many times whether I could proceed with this. Maybe that's reflected in this 10-year postdoc/research associate that I was doing because part of me was, "Oh, can I really transition? Should I look elsewhere? Can I apply elsewhere? Am I competitive enough?" That voice in the back of your head that tells you, you're not like the others, and so why would they look at you? It was always there, but it didn't stop me from pursuing what I wanted to pursue, but it was always there, so I did definitely question myself.
People are going to question why I chose to do a 10-year postdoc in Toronto. I better come up with a really good answer and show them why. Even though I've done 10 years postdoc in Toronto, I've done my undergrad in Toronto, my master's in Toronto, my PhD in Toronto, and now postdoc research associate position in Toronto. I'm still quite capable of running an independent research program different from all the places I've trained, and be hopefully, globally competitive enough to really stand out in front of all my peers at a global stage.
When I first, going back to my publication in 2012, because of that work, it really exposed me to a lot of people and researchers in the world who was also very interested in the type of work that we were doing. I took on those opportunities every time I was given them to go give talks, wherever they may be, at conferences, in labs across the world to give lectures.
I took on any of opportunity to expose myself to everyone that this is me. Yes, I'm a postdoc in Dr. Rossant's lab and Dr. Ellis' lab, but this is my research and this is what I did, and stood ground. People respected me for doing that. That also helped, I think, with the confidence that, yes, I think she could stand on her own two feet. [chuckles]
Sandrine: I guess, in a context like this, it doesn't matter what your job title is, it's about actually the work that you deliver and how you push the science.
Amy: Exactly. People tend to associate a big name, your mentor as the person who is responsible for your work but I think that's a huge setback for those who really built their own research platform, but had the support of their mentors. I think having good mentors who lets you shine and not take your stage is very important here. I think I was very lucky to have that, where my mentors pretty much said, "Okay, this is Amy's work, so you would like to invite me to give a talk at such and such conference, Amy, you should give the talk. This is your work." I think that really helped as well.
Sandrine: This idea of having mentors who actually champion you to others they could be the one on the stage, they could be the one giving the talk at the conference. For them to say, "Actually, Amy can do that presentation, Amy can give the paper, and I don't need to do it." It's accepting that your role is different. I guess that's what you're learning now yourself. How are you finding this transition to now you are the one in charge and you are the one creating the space for others to strive and develop. What has it been like?
Amy: I very much am grateful for all the opportunities I had as a trainee and how, like you said, many people championed my career from the very, very get-go. I know how those opportunities have helped me shape my career and get me to where I am. That's one of the things I always, always keep in the back of my head, when now I have my own trainees and they come to my office, I let them guide their research direction. I'm only here to provide advice, but they're the ones that are leading their research projects. When opportunity comes, they're the ones who are giving the talk.
For example, my PhD student just gave a seminar in our CF program. Usually those are reserved for PIs to give. Basically, a research progress update type of talk, but I said, "You know what, this is Henry's work, he's leading it, he should give the talk," and he did a fantastic job. It's good because now, the CF people or the clinician scientists, basic scientists, as part of the program, knows who he is and knows Henry is the one that's doing this work. He's in Amy Wong's lab, but he's the one that's leading this work. He's building that connection with important people that I think will eventually help him in his own career.
Sandrine: What is it like for you? Because in the role of the PI, you can't be in the lab in the way that you were before, and maybe in the last few years when you were still research associate, maybe you were doing less lab work because you were already starting to manage others. Now as a PI, you are very unlikely to be able to be at the bench like you were before. You will spend many months drafting a grant and drafting ideas and all these refined and hard worked ideas, then you put in the hands of somebody else. I call them your babies, your idea babies to either somebody else to look after and to get others to let these ideas grow. How have you experienced it?
Amy: It hasn't been difficult. I think my idea when I first started my lab, I actually thought I would be more in the research lab than I am now. They always say, as an early career investigator, you should be in the lab probably at least 50% of your time because you should be training these people, but like I said earlier, I had built a team or I had techs who were with me before I started my research lab, and they've now become the trainers to everyone who joins my lab, which lets me be away from the research bench a little bit, and
think about ideas for research grants and new creative projects that we probably would not typically work on, and explore those ideas.
Those are not just my ideas, those are ideas born from discussions with my team. We have regular meetings very often, both one on one, and then as a team. We have journal clubs where we explore people's publications and then talk about, what can we do if we had these tools? What can we explore? Those type of ideas that we have discussions regularly, and having time now in the office to just sit down and write those ideas out has been very fruitful for me, in terms of writing many research grants that, thank goodness, have been funded.
Sandrine: What do you think has been the most challenging in term of navigating the research environment? Again, because you are based in two different location and in a way, the expectation of what people want you to do within the hospital context and your research team and within the expectation of your university post.
Amy: I had an idea of what I was jumping into, [laughs] like I said, because I had a little practice run as a research associate. I didn't realize the extent of having to be able to multitask until I actually got into this role. Suddenly, everyone wants a piece of you. [laughs] You have all these obligations at the research hospital to run your research program, train your trainees. There's even administrative stuff that you get roped into, which is very common. Suddenly, you need to help review grants or review fellowships and all these other stuff that they try to get you involved.
Then, from the university standpoint, likewise, they want you to teach. The one thing about being based in a research hospital is there's a negotiation between the hospital and the university that for early career investigators, the first couple of years are protected. We should not be forced into some of these other administrative work that we have to do with the university, and that we're given protected time to really focus on our research and build and establish our lab before we jump onto those, or take on those additional roles. I've been very lucky to have that. The chair of my department has been very kind to me in protecting my time and making sure that I can fully establish my lab and they could run smoothly before giving me additional tasks of teaching and designing a new course for the university.
Then, of course, on top of that, I'm a mom with two small kids, so I have other responsibilities outside of my work. I don't think I realized the amount of multitasking you have to do in this particular role. You're responsible for everything [laughs] and for everyone. In the research lab, students, they're your babies, that you're responsible for anyone make sure to get the proper training, that they're seeking. Then, at home, you have your own family responsibilities as well. That I find is probably the most challenging part. [laughs]
Sandrine: What's been your approach in a way? Often, people talk about creating boundaries, and it's all very well to say, "Okay, you need to create boundaries," but how have you done it?
Amy: I do have boundaries in terms of work cannot spread into the home, essentially. When I go home, it's really home time, and I don't turn on my computer. Having said that, I turn it on after the kids go to bed. [laughs] I do make boundaries in the sense that, if I am home, no one is to bother my space or interfere with my space, and I can focus on my home life. When I'm at work, likewise, it's my work time and outside cannot influence my work time and focus.
I also create boundaries for myself, for my trainees. Often, you'll hear of PIs emailing their students at 2:00 AM in the morning, expecting a figure or something for their manuscript. I don't let that happen. It's during work time, and if I will make the requests, and then you can re respond to me during your work time. I really value work-life balances.
I certainly am one to learn the hard way when I was doing my training as a graduate student, where I felt I took on too many responsibilities and focused too much on my research, that I didn't have a really good work-life balance. It took a toll on me physically and emotionally. It was something that I knew that when I started my research career and my research lab, that I was going to make sure that my people were going to have good proper work-life balance. I do have rules here as well for them that they're not to work beyond certain hours. If they were coming on the weekend, they should take some time off during the week. It's very important that they're happy. When they're happy, they want to come in and do the work. That's just how the math works. If they feel like they're satisfied doing the work here, then it's going to lead to good results.
Sandrine: I often talk in the workshops that I run about the habits that we may have that help us to be resilient or to work well. Do you have specific habits that really are important in doing the multitasking, in really enabling you to have these boundaries?
Amy: One habit that I have always had is I always make, every morning, I do a checklist of tasks that need to get done today. I actually, literally draw out the boxes so that I could check [laughs] all the tasks that get done. I find it, time management is very important in being able to do everything, especially in doing so many things at the same time. Writing this checklist every morning that I set myself, "Okay, this is what I want to get done today. During these hours, if I get this done, bonus, I can do something that's not related to work."
I think that's something I've always done, not just as a PI, but ever since I've been doing school, actually. I was in school in undergrad, I've always made myself checklists that I keep to and make sure I keep to it too. I actually stress myself out if I don't keep to it. [laughs]
Sandrine: It's interesting also because if you think about being strategic in term of new opportunities that you may take and others where you may say, "I am not going to do that." How have you been strategic in the way that you make decision on what to take on or not?
Amy: Yes, that's a good question. I'm not entirely sure I do it the right way. [laughs] I'm always very happy to take on new challenges, especially challenges that are not something that I do on a day-to-day basis or something that we think we or my lab can be an expert in. I like creative ideas and I like challenges, and so I've taken on a lot of projects that I probably would've never imagined I would take on, but because the idea was cool and that we had the right tools to do it. Some of those projects where I wrote grants for have been very fruitful in the sense that they've been funded and we're actually working on it right now. Do I regret it? No. I think it's now created a more broad research environment for my trainees to learn different things as well.
No, and also, I am collaborating with people who I feel really needs to be involved with the project. This gives opportunities for my trainees to not just learn from me, but learn from experts in other disciplines as well. No, I don't regret in taking those particular types of challenges and extra roles, which is part of the university. There's some administrative work that I had been approached to do, and I actually said yes to them. For example, grading fellowship applications or studentship applications.
The reason why I took them on, because I thought, this would really help me understand what is a good application versus what is not a good application, so that I can help my own students when it comes to their application. That was the reason why I took on those roles, was that I can better equip myself, so that I can guide my students in writing the "winning application". I think it's been very fruitful. It's really helped me understand what is a good application, versus not a good application.
Sandrine: If you're thinking about the big picture of the research environment, what do you want your role to be in term of challenging the research culture or changing research practices so that the research environment becomes better? It sounds a bit dumb to say that like this, but in a way, we often talk about unsustainable practices in the research environment in term of the expectation that are placed. I really believe that revisiting what we're asking of PIs, of postdocs, of PhD students, so that the research careers are most sustainable in term of people's wellbeing. Also from the point of view of creating an environment where people from diverse cultural background feel that they can belong and be part of. How do you see your role in that messy space of the research world?
Amy: Maybe I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. How do I see myself playing a role in this whole research environment? I'd like to think that I'm contributing to this whole movement of making sure that everyone has equal opportunities in research. Obviously, you see me, I'm an Asian, I'm a visible minority, and I've been very lucky because I've had the support of older White men and White female scientists because they understand that science has no boundaries. It's not restricted to a certain type, if you will. That if someone has a real research potential and real good research ideas, they should have the opportunity to explore it.
I'd like to think that I want to pass on the same type of support to my trainees, and they could be of any background, of any race, of any culture, of any anything. As long as they have an interesting idea and they want to explore it, I want to provide the environment for them to explore it and contribute to that. I think that's where I think, no, it's not really about a specific research in mind. Sure, of course, I want to contribute to the whole field of lung regeneration and stem cell media regeneration and disease modeling, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but more importantly, I want to create the right research environment that I can nurture anyone and everyone who wants to be in this field, and learn and grow and expand it.
Sandrine: In a way, based on what you've been saying, your own Chinese heritage doesn't appear to have impacted you in really obvious ways. What do you think is your role as coming from an ethnic minority, or I don't know if that's the way it's talked about in Canada, but in term of getting undergrad and master and PhD graduates who come from minorities to feel that they belong, that their heritage, their cultural background shouldn't stop them from wanting to do science and research?
Amy: I've never had that direct conversation with those trainees from a different background as to why they selected my research lab. I always assumed [laughs] that they selected my research lab, not because I'm Asian or a young female scientist, but because they were interested in the research. That's the approach I look at when I hire students as well, is whether or not they're interested in the work research.
It doesn't matter what research work, culture, or background they're from, however, I do make a conscious effort to hire people of visible minority or from a different culture or a different background because I know we're missing some of these important people who come from different cultures and have different ideas in our research. It's not as diverse as we think, [laughs] and so I make a conscious effort to hire people of different backgrounds, and make sure that I provide equal opportunity for everyone.
Having said that, I do have, and maybe this shouldn't go in the real recording, but on the side, I do notice that a lot of the people who tend to apply to my lab are the ones that look like me, who are Chinese, young female scientists. I don't know why. [laughs] Maybe it's just a natural thing where people tend to gravitate to people who are alike, but it's one of the things where sometimes I don't get the White male trainee, for instance. I don't know.
Sandrine: That's interesting. I suppose, for some of these women, because you do represent a role model.
Amy: Possibly.
Sandrine: It's a sense of feeling attracted. In a way, what is interesting is that if you have less of the average White, middle-class PhD applicant, that that in itself is interesting.
Amy: Exactly. It's something I've noticed, but I do make a conscious effort in my hire to make sure I have a good representation, and everyone's voice is equal and heard in my lab.
Sandrine: I'm going to finish off our conversation by asking you a final two questions. If there is one insight, one piece of wisdom that you will want to share with a researcher who is maybe has been a postdoc for several years and is asking themselves, do I really belong? Do I really want that life in the research world? Do I carry on? Do I get out? What do I do with that transition? What would be the wisdom that you would want to share with them?
Amy: I would say not to be afraid to take a step back and understand what exactly you want, and not be afraid to pursue it. Even if it takes you another 5 years, 10 years to get there, so be it, because that's what you want. I do believe that if you really want something, it will happen because you'll find a way to understand what you really want. You really need to have a little moment of self-infliction and understand if that's exactly what you want. I find a lot of people say they want one thing, but really, they want something else. Or there's something else that's taking them away from what they really want.
Yes, take a moment and understand what exactly what you want and how can you get there, and you will find a way. Because if it's just learning a specific skill that's preventing you from getting to that particular end goal, well, there you go. You'll find an answer, you'll find a lab or you'll find a place to learn it. If it's publishing more papers, well, then you're going to look into all the data that you have that's not published and see if you can make a story out of it, or build another story off of what you're already working on.
Sandrine: I think what I found really interesting about your path is that you took your time and in a way, you didn't rush into that next step. When people are on short-term contracts, at least in the UK, there is a sense of urgency or, "I need to get the next thing. I need to get the next thing." Often, people lose a sense of what they want because they just think, "Okay, the next contract," and being able to actually enjoy the process of what it is that you're doing and consider, "It may take me two postdocs, three postdocs to be ready to do what I want to be doing." The final question that I have is, what gives you joy in your research life?
Amy: What gives me joy in my research life? It's actually not the successes I've had with my grant writing or my grants or publications, oddly enough. [laughs] It's actually seeing the happiness that comes from my trainees when they come into my office and they worked really hard on a western blot and showed nothing for weeks, and then suddenly come into my office and see a band, and it shows that the experiment actually worked. Or they've tweaked something in the machine and suddenly, they can see a very prominent band, specific band. Those are the things that matter to me, that gives me joy, and know that I'm on the right track and I'm really helping them.
It's not the bigger things. It should be, but [laughs] it's not the success in the grants, or it's not the funding that I'm getting, and it's not the research publication. Ultimately, it's just seeing that my trainees are learning something, and I'm providing them a research environment where they are learning something. They're so excited that they're coming into my office just to show me a western blot. [laughs] It's like when your child comes to you and says, "Hey, look at my painting," and you're like, I don't know what it is, but as long as it makes you happy, I'm happy. [laughs]
Sandrine: That's wonderful. Thank you so much, Amy. It's been really a pleasure to talk to you. I wish you the very best with your very big research team and lots of success with your training.
Amy: Thank you so much for having me.
[music]
[00:54:19] [END OF AUDIO]