68- Prof. Milica Radisic- Creating interdependence in teams

Prof. Milica Radisic is a Functional Cardiovascular Tissue Engineering Professor at the Institute of Biomedical Engineering (University of Toronto, Canada).   Her work sits at the interface of engineering, stem cell biology and chemistry. Her ethos as a PI is to create interdependence between team members to build a collaborative and effective research team.

Milica is part of a generation of scientists for whom the transition from PhD to academic positions could appear to have been incredibly fast compared to the current generation of aspiring academics. The funding context and institutional expectations were different at the time. 

Milica explains that the start-up packages were small then, and the access to research funding took a long time. This meant it took several years for newly appointed academics to get started with building their teams. Milica feels that in the current context, whilst there is a higher expectation at the point of recruitment, those appointed may be able to access research funding more quickly to start building their research group.

Milica’s transition post PhD was likely helped by the fact she had done her PhD in an incredibly prestigious research environment at MIT and had been surrounded by a very talented research community.

Her experience at MIT was one of support, motivation and inspiration. We often make assumptions about the research environment in US highly competitive research groups and institutions. We assume that the environment will be highly competitive between team members, but also that work-life balance will be absent. We all have heard horror stories of Postdocs experiencing unsustainable research environments in this type of highly prestigious institution.

Of course, these cultures of overwork and high competition exist, and each person will experience the environment differently. Milica felt that the head of the research group was setting the tone for the research team. She experienced this environment not as one of competition within the lab, but as one of inspiration to thrive as a scientist. It all stemmed from the ethos held by the Principal Investigator to have a healthy environment for his research group.

It is not because a research group is highly successful and competitive externally that this equates with an unhealthy research environment internally. Some researchers may stop themselves from considering applying for positions in highly competitive teams for fear of what the environment will be like. There is no rule. You just need to see what it is like for yourself. You cannot make assumptions about the research culture within a team, a department or an institution. You just need to discuss it with others who are experiencing it themselves or may need to experience it firsthand.

Listening to our conversation will prompt your thinking:

• Are labels (e.g. “world-class”, “highly competitive”, “prestigious”, “high impact”) about institutions and research teams deterring you from applying for roles? 
• How much interdependence with your research colleagues are you prepared to have? 
• Who do you have to support you in crafting and refining new research ideas?

Access the blog inspired by this interview here:
https://tesselledevelopment.com/research-lives-and-cultures/milica-radisic

Transcript

Sandrine: 0:00

All right. Let's get started. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. Dear listeners, you're on the podcast research lives and cultures. I'm your host, Sandrine Soub. And today I have the pleasure to have with me professor Milika Radizic. Welcome on the show.

Milica: 0:29

Thank you very much, Sandrine. It's a pleasure to be here.

Sandrine: 0:33

So in the next few months, I'm going to run a program called Daring to Dare with some women in stem cell researcher in Canada. So the, the stem cell network in Canada who is invited me to run this program suggested that I have a conversation with you about your, your career path and how you manage your, your career in research. What's really been fascinating in, in looking at at your website is to see the range of successes that you've had in your career. And I must admit that when I looked at your, at your CV I was like, wow. and in a way I think that for a lot of people in research, when we look at the experiences of others, when we look at the CV of others, it's really, really challenging because we feel, oh, I'll never get there. Or, you know, this person has achieved so much and we only see the successes of others. And as part of this program, Daring to Dare, My, if you want, my my ethos in program when I work with early career researchers is to get them not focusing on, you know, the success of others, but focusing on the steps that they can take. So I'm really interested in exploring with you, you know, some of the steps that were really important in your career. And you know, the challenges that you face and, how you navigated some of these challenges. So maybe the first question would be, how did you get started? And you, you did your, your PhD at at MIT and already that's kind of an incredible step. So tell us, take us back and tell us the story of how it all started.

Milica: 2:13

Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the program. So I'll tell you about the earliest kind of thoughts and steps about being a scientist or not. So I think ever since I was a little child, I knew I wanted to be a scientist. I just didn't know in what area, obviously, you know, there isn't enough knowledge. And I first came to McMaster in Hamilton. It's just a little bit south of Toronto to do my undergrad. And I came from Serbia all by myself when I was 20. There was one family who I knew in Hamilton who helped out for the first couple of months. And so that was, I think, a very significant step. and a big difference compared to what I was used to. That was probably the biggest change, the biggest step in all of my career. And I was really fortunate to be in the chemical engineering at McMaster because the class was small. I, I think back then, everything was smaller. This was in the nineties. Usually there weren't that many students in the programs. It was, the class of 40, approximately 40. So I found myself that I'm able to fit in quite well and I can follow what's going on, but it was a big difference, right? Taking school in another language, in another country, and I'm just learning about how things work. in a different system, getting new friends. And there was a really a group of spectacular professors. Most of them have retired. And in fact, Elizabeth Edwards who is a professor now in my department in chemical engineering at U of T, she taught the first class at McMaster when I came in Introduction to Chemical Engineering. And back then all the professors were men and she was the only one, she was the only woman. And got really nice mentoring also from Phil Wood, who's an amazing professor. So overall it was an outstanding experience at McMaster. And then I was in the last semester of the last year at McMaster, I was thinking, what, what should I do next? Where should I go? I want, I knew I wanted to do my PhD and I was thinking, where should I go? And I was in the library of McMaster University was, uh, people nowadays forget is that the journals came to libraries, right? There were no online journals.

Sandrine: 4:50

I remember that period as well.

Milica: 4:52

And so you had to read papers in the library So I picked up a copy of Scientific American and inside there was a paper that Bob Langer wrote with Vacanti in 99 about tissue engineering, which was like a pretty new idea It just started in the 80s late 80s and people there weren't many people working on it and I read this paper about you know, that idea of taking cells, combining them with polymer scaffolds or natural scaffolds to create tissues. And I was just mesmerized. I knew I wanted to do that. So I applied I wrote to Bob Langer and I said I'll be, you know, I read your paper. paper and some, I wrote some self promotional message such as I've been at the top of every every class I ever took. I really want to work with you on tissue engineering and he responded very nicely, you know, and very quickly. Bob is very good in responding fast and he said, Yeah, we'll be happy to consider you if you come to MIT. you have to be admitted to MIT first before you can work with any professor there. So I applied to seven, eight universities, mostly in the States. And basically, when I visited these places, I, I knew MIT is the place where I want to go because it had enough combination of breadth and depth that there were enough professors and enough projects in bio and in tissue engineering that I was confident that I would be able to find a project because in the U. S. schools, you have to be confident. accepted to the department first and then you're looking for a supervisor and if it's a department that only has one or two professors who are working in back then emerging areas, there weren't that many professors doing bio and chemical engineering, there wasn't a lot of guarantee that I'll be able to find the project. So that was it. Then I, I went to MIT and I ended up in Bob's lab.

Sandrine: 6:58

two very courageous steps, early on in your career, to leave your country and come to Canada. And then also the the daring approach of just sending a message to an eminent professor. What did you have within yourself that gave you the courage and the daring to just go for it?

Milica: 7:16

So basically I knew that It would be very difficult, not impossible, obviously, to get a career in science if I, if I didn't leave Serbia because back then the times were tough and just access to information was also difficult, right, to journals and textbooks and I knew the opportunity would be a lot less and it would be, a setback, right? Obviously not impossible. There are people who succeeded even by getting undergrad there. So I knew that it was like, if you want to make it in science, you should try this, do this stuff. And then for, for Grad school, it was that small area back then, right? Tissue engineering, there were only a few places that were doing that. And if I really wanted to do that, I had to go to that place that's doing it. Otherwise I'll have to do something else, right? And I really wanted, I was really mesmerized by that paper about tissue engineering. And so it was kind of. almost like there is no other choice, right? If you want to do this, that's the only choice that you have to follow.

Sandrine: 8:24

You said that you read something in the New Scientist.

Milica: 8:27

scientific American. It was

Sandrine: 8:28

Yeah. And it's funny because I mean, it's considered, a magazine of, scientific communication, but you're actually not the first person who said to me that actually an article in that type of magazine really influenced the choice of research that you wanted to do. And in a way it's kind of a message to, the research community, how these articles really influence the decisions that, potential graduate students made to, to reach out or not.

Milica: 8:54

Yeah, I think the excellent menus, scientific American or new scientists, because if you are a student, let's say a high school student or an undergraduate student, you don't have enough knowledge to follow, like to read a whole paper in nature or science and to understand what's going on, right? And actually, it's a very dense reading. It could actually be quite deterring. But the way the messaging is written, in Scientific American or New Scientist, it's accessible to anybody, and but it's also accurate, right? It's also accurately written. So I think they're perfect values, right? Nowadays we have a wealth of information everywhere, but a lot of that information has nothing to do with truth,

Sandrine: 9:39

And especially on social media, yeah, a lot, a lot of you know, bad information is shared. So when you think about, the period that you had as a, PhD student, what do you feel was really significant in getting you to move on really focusing on what you wanted to work later on? What was your experience of, graduate school like?

Milica: 10:01

it was an excellent experience. Obviously, a lot of work, a lot of hard work, and the when, if you're at MIT, let's say, Bob's Lab, places like, like top universities like that, they attract the best people. And then because it's very difficult to be admitted, there is both self selection. Who applied, and also there is selection at the site, so you're really surrounded by the most motivated, probably most creative individuals that you can find around, and it was a lot of work that, for example, in Bob's lab, I met Gordana Bunjak, who is a professor at Columbia, and I worked with her very closely, she was a PI in Bob's lab, because Bob's lab is very large, and there are usually people who are PIs, they're running their own projects, they bring their own money, external money from funding agencies such as NIH or NASA or other agencies and so Gurdana was there at that time. She has been a professor at Columbia now for almost 20 years and so I had the pleasure really and privilege of working with her as, as well and, for example Ali Khedem Hosseini, who is director of the Terasaki Institute. He was my office mate. Guillermo Mir, who is also director of a center in Northwestern, was my office mate. And it was just you know, really a huge privilege to be surrounded by, by people like that. And it's very motivational because you can have really good conversations with people who are you know, challenging scientific norms and developing new technologies. And also you see what other people are doing, you know, what are they publishing, how fast are they publishing. So overall it was a very stimulating environment that ensured that you Can reach your maximum productivity.

Sandrine: 12:03

that sort of environment where there is, you know people who are really highly motivated, highly intelligent, there is also a lot of competition. How did you manage that element of competition in the way that, The work is hard, but actually looking after ourself is also important. So how did you find a balance to be resilient in that space?

Milica: 12:25

so actually it was a very healthy environment It was very very healthy I didn't feel that there was any internal competition or you know People's matching projects for one another a lot of that depends on comes from the top, right? It comes from the PI and People who are more in senior more supervisory roles And Bob is very generous, and Gurdana is also very generous, and all people who were there in senior roles, they're very generous, and they, the way they deal with their collaborators and other others in the lab sets the tone, right? I didn't feel there was any internal competition in any way that would be detrimental. So that was, that was a really good thing. You have to create a lab where people are interdependent, right, on one another and not competing. And In that way, everybody ends up with a lot of publications and recognition, discoveries, etc. So I think that's the key, right? That interdependence on a lot of members, on one another, where everybody is enabling other people to succeed. Because you can't succeed by yourself in anything, right? We depend on other people. I think this is true in anything, not just in lab work, in life, in any area of human activity. So, the key is really to set up that interdependence of

Sandrine: 13:57

I mean, it's a very good, yeah, it's a very good term interdependence and instead of, you know, having postdoc working alongside each other on their own thing, but not relying on each other and supporting each other in project goals. Yeah.

Milica: 14:10

yeah, yeah. It's, I mean, it's very easy to see how this is necessary, because even, you know, There are different techniques and different, for example, measurements that have to be carried out. Some people are very skilled and it's easy for them to do certain measurements. If they're in the same lab, why not divide this work, right? And if you're creating a new technology or investigating a new scientific question Different people could do different techniques and they all contribute the results towards the final publication.

Sandrine: 14:43

Do you think that, I mean, experiencing that, you know, that an ethos of interdependence during your, during your PhD, do you think that it's really shaping the way that you actually design projects now in terms of your own group?

Milica: 14:58

I, I think for sure I try to also instill that sense of sharing and interdependence. People are dependent on one another, working together. So I try to do that for sure. We have to make sure that personalities we recruit, that people like to be in that environment. Some people just like to work by themselves. So that's also fine. It's just probably a little bit more time is necessary if you wanna work like that.

Sandrine: 15:27

So at the end of your PhD, you stayed in the same research group to, to do a postdoc?

Milica: 15:33

Yeah, at the end of the PhD, towards the end that was in 2004, I interviewed at the University of Toronto, and that was in February before I defended my PhD, but most of my papers were done, and I interviewed at U of T, and they after a few months, let's say in August or something like that, they made me an offer, so they offered me this job, and I I asked if I could stay one more year in Bob's lab to do a postdoc, because it's very valuable to do something like that. And yeah, they said they'll wait a year and then I need to, I need to come. So that, that was it. I didn't really interview much. I just interviewed at U of T. And that's the only place I applied to, so I just took that offer. Wasn't it well thought out or not? It worked out. I guess when you're at the end of your PhD and somebody makes you a job offer like assistant professor, you don't try looking some more.

Sandrine: 16:32

Yeah. And it is very unusual because often people will have several postdocs before being in a position to apply for that type of position.

Milica: 16:40

yeah, back then, that was almost 20 years ago, right? Like, and it was unusual, but not that unusual, you know, there were others also who got offers at the end of PhD, but I, like you, you didn't need a postdoc in most cases, but it wasn't like, oh, unheard of that somebody would be offered a job right after the PhD, especially because we were in engineering. And it was more in life sciences, the traditional longer postdoc was common, but in engineering, because there was a lot of demand for engineers in the workforce. And then sometimes it was, you know, back then, maybe. not as much competition in the academic world, but that has changed. And now I think people need a long postdoc, which is fine also, because now I see that assistant professors, they come and they can do a lot more things. They get the first grant, like CHR grant within the first two, three years. That for us was very difficult, right? We would We have to wait longer, maybe five, six years before we can get that, and keep trying because it's almost like you haven't, you know, had that experience with your PhD supervisor or during postdoc. But now when they do longer postdocs, they're writing proposals and they're a lot more ready to dive in.

Sandrine: 18:03

So how did it feel that transition of, getting, your first academic posts fairly quickly? in term of starting to apply for funding, recruiting your first students, these first few years are pretty mental in term of the, the range of. activities that you have to show yourself that are different from just doing the research. I

Milica: 18:25

So, yeah, but let's first talk about getting the job is actually. So I said I interviewed and I got the job, right? But there was actually quite a lot of prep for that interview, right? Like I only. I had a daughter during my Ph. D. and another during my postdoc, So I didn't really go to a lot of conferences. I only went two times at the end of my Ph. D., right? So I only presented publicly, maybe three times during that entire Ph. D. And I, you know, I really encourage, and I've almost I don't want to say force, but encourage my students to go and present. I think that's really important to develop their presentation skills. But then you have to give this interview, which is an hour long seminar, and then another, like, deeper interview with the search community. So there was a lot of prep. I was, like, reading about there were resources at MIT compiled back then online about how to prepare for an interview, et cetera, and what to say and how to organize a presentation, and, but also we practiced, and that's the key, right, and we practiced in the group meeting, but also the postdocs and, later graduate students, we would get together on Saturday and practice. And Ali Kadam Hosseini said Oh, really, there is this group of you know, people practicing job talks. Do you want to, do you want to join the group? And I said, yeah, yeah. So we would go and somebody would present and other people would give feedback. But who was in the group? In the group was Ali Kadam Hosseini, Jason Burdick, Sam Siha, myself. Everybody became a famous professor afterwards, right? The key, I guess. is practical and have other scientists hear your talk and your ideas and then really challenge them in a positive way, right? So that you can add depth to your ideas and, and question if this is the direction that, that you want to go, right? So when, when you're interviewing in a job talk, right? The Your record publication record, where you're trained, that gets you the interview, right? That's what I can help, or any professor can help the trainee. make sure they're publishing well, and they have exposure to conferences, etc. But once you're interviewing, right, it's you, only you. And, your ideas have to be quite well developed. There has to be a research program that's impactful, that Will transform things over 30 or 40 years and you have to be able to tell a story and sometimes, you know I ask my trainees. I usually tell them what's gonna be possible so you have to think about something really long term and transformative, a problem that's both important and that hasn't been solved because it's hard, right? And how do you fit in that environment? So you have to think about all those things really, and I would say there was a lot of prep into that one, that went into that one interview. It was many months of preparation.

Sandrine: 21:32

One of the things that I pick from what you just said, is that actually having a group of people with whom you can do that and having peers and It's interesting because I think that you know, from 20 years ago, the environment has changed tremendously in terms of the support offered for PhD student and postdoc. You know, in most major universities, will be a group of trainers and coaches to support that process. However, I think that taking control of what you need and having a group of peers with whom you can, you know, brainstorm research ideas and practice your interview. is really key because you can't expect other people to have everything in place for you to prepare. And the PI can't do everything.

Milica: 22:16

Yeah, no, the PI cannot help you, and the, the PI literally cannot help you. They can tell you things that I just said in this couple minutes, like, you should have depth in your idea, etc. But really, the honest isn't new to come up with those ideas. And that's actually very hard, even for senior people. We know when we are writing a grant proposal, right, like we are really struggling to articulate our ideas. And it, sometimes it's a very draining process. But if you're proposing your entire research program that's supposed to cover something like 30, 40 years, It's many, many projects that you have to think about how they will fit together and what are the important questions so that that takes a little bit of time. And I guess being in that environment at MIT around Bob and you're surrounded by good, like really good people Bob also runs group meetings where the and back then people who were interviewing for different jobs. They could also present in that meeting, right? Having that was very, very good, very important.

Sandrine: 23:24

and there is also the thing of seeing how others present and how they present their ideas, because you're learning as much from seeing others do it, than doing it yourself. It's funny because I often with the work that I've done with PhD and often people will say, well, I don't really attend many of the seminars because it's not exactly, you know, my area. And I think of being exposed to other ideas that may not be exactly what you're working on, but are actually part of the fuel that is needed for you to build your project. And there is often a reticence because everybody's busy, he's got too much to do, but actually exposure to different ideas is really critical.

Milica: 24:03

yeah, absolutely. I think it's absolutely critical for a scientist who wants to pursue academic career in this way, even if you're interviewing for industry job, I think in big pharma biotech companies, they look for very similar things and absolutely critical. You should go and see other people's interviews because you know, any university, any department over a period of time, there will be recruiting people and there will be potential candidates coming, giving seminars. Even if it's not in your research area, I think it's really important to go and then you will see who got hired, right? And then you'll have a sense which seminar went well. Sometimes, you know, a good person may have multiple offers, so it could be a good seminar and they may not show up in the department, but you'll have a good sense of who did well, who didn't. Do well and accordingly you can tailor your presentation.

Sandrine: 24:58

So I'll be interested now in exploring, way that you've set up your research group and, that process of transition from, being recruited to establishing yourself. I mean, there are many, many steps in the process of building a research group.

Milica: 25:13

So I think this sounds, may sound a little bit like, Oh, back in the day we had to walk through the snow to get to school. But there is an element of that. So first of all the postdocs are longer now. But the startup packages are, many, many times bigger than what we used to get especially in Canada there was a huge discrepancy between even 20 years ago, what my peers were getting in the U. S. as a startup and what we were getting here in Canada, most of us. now it's not unusual to get a startup package that's a million dollars or even more, right? Even for an assistant professor, and we started from 40, 000 of spending money and 300, 000 CFI grant that you have to write for equipment, right? And nowadays it's not unusual. You get a million dollars of spending money and the CFI grant to write that you have to write that you may or may not get, but usually if you're good, you get it. And so it's a huge difference, right? 40, 000 versus a million. What can you do with 48, 000? And probably not much. And so it was just a very, very different game. And I find that Now it's harder, maybe a bit harder, to get a position. You need a longer postdoc, but usually resources are given that really enable you to hit the ground running. And you can see very quickly assistant professors, they are publishing really top transformative papers. Attracting more funding. I think for us, it just took a long, longer, a bit longer time to get there because with 40, 000, well, you're going to get two students. What can they do? Right? You have to wait for your first answer grant to come through and then you write another foundation grant. Maybe, like in my case, it was the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I'm very thankful to them. Or the JDFR, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Those are my first grants, right? You're very thankful to them. Then you hire a bit more students, then they can do a bit more, like you can't even write a CHR grant because you just don't have enough material to, to put in there. but if you have a million dollar startup, you can hire five, six students right away. Right. So it was just, a different scale or a different pace at which we were moving and we had to be very resourceful with everything that we are buying or using in terms of materials.

Sandrine: 27:44

So, what were the challenges in, in growing your team? I mean, in a way there is an advantage to growing your team quite slowly, if you're given a huge amount of funding and then you suddenly have, you know, three PhD students starting with you and you've actually never formally supervised anyone, it's actually pretty challenging. So What do you think that you did well in sort of building your research group you know, step by step, what were, I don't know, practices or things that you did that were really important of creating a team that worked for you.

Milica: 28:17

well, you, you have to make sure that every person succeeds, right? Because that's the only way, right? Everybody has to succeed. And and then as a group we succeed, right? It can be like, oh, I'm going to succeed, but you're not going to succeed, right? So it's not going to be like that. Like, everybody has to succeed for the group to succeed. So my first student was Rohi Nair. He's really great. He's doing actually really well. He's now has a a leading position in a cell manufacturing company. And The key is, and it's sometimes really hard to tell while you are interviewing you should, hopefully your first students will be very generous people, hopefully, like generous with their time. And, we're willing to do things that, like lab setup. What are they getting out of it, right? So there is a lot of tasks in a new lab that have to be done. That don't necessarily contribute to the mission of the PhD students, right? But they just have to be done and so hopefully that first one or two students that you get will be really team players and they will be willing to do this. And so Rohin was my first student. My second student was Mel, Mel Brown. She's I think with in Ottawa with used to be with Abbott and so they were both great, right? They're really, really generous. With their time. They published well and they, they did overall really well, and they have good careers. And so what's in it for the students? And I, I've been told multiple times and people have written to me that the experience that they got, like if they have to do many different things in terms of lab organization and everything that they, in the workplace, it was really easy for them later on. Because they knew how to do so many different things and they would say, oh, it was a walk in the park. I got to my work and I knew everything. I knew everything from the lab work or I knew how to set up a new lab. I knew how to fill the forms for something. So that's, that's the benefit of the training in that kind of new lab environment.

Sandrine: 30:35

I mean, in a way it's enabling people to develop a lot of the transferable skills that, you know highly valued in, non academic research

Milica: 30:44

yeah, they're valued anywhere, right? Those, like, if you are self reliant and able to find information. There are so many different tasks, right? In running a bio lab, like you have to get all kinds of different permits. If you have an animal protocol, you have to deal with that. You have to order materials and supplies, talk to vendors, set up accounts, right? And those are really so many different types of skills, dealing with people, being accurate, expressing yourself, writing. All of that is so, so important. That's the benefit, right, of being in a, in a small lab.

Sandrine: 31:21

what do you think that, you did well as you progressed in your career, because you have to apply for multiple funding and the expectation that are placed on you, by the department and with the teaching and everything kind of expand. So how did you go about deciding, okay, that's the right opportunity for me to take, or I'm going to take this opportunity and know this one, what were moments of juncture that you had where you had to make difficult choices in terms of the direction of the work that you did?

Milica: 31:53

I think in terms of direction of the work, right, you, if you just talk about science itself, right, it's the key to go to conferences and meetings and meet people and listen to what other people are saying. Right? Listen to the talks and see what other people are talking about. And what are really problems for everyone, right? It could, you could have a problem that's just for your lab because you don't know, like maybe you're not doing something well, right? But if you go to conferences and you're listening to the talks and talking during the coffee break to people and what is it that everybody is struggling with? Those are the big questions that are probably worthwhile your time. So picking kind of the right research direction, I think often informed by that you have to talk to other scientists and listen to their presentations. Sometimes, you know, there are some areas that are a little bit hyped and you can think about do you want to be in that area or not, it's always like that. And I think It's not a good idea just to go from one hype to another. You should have some kind of mission, but it does help with funding if your research area at that moment has a little bit of hype because that's where the funding will be. So I think all of that has to be balanced. The ability to attract funding, right? You have to also listen to what the reviewers are saying. If you write your proposal, read the comments, what are they saying? You know, how could you correct that research direction? So With all of that there is like an intersection, right? You find your own research direction and the problems to, to work on. And then we also have strategic decisions, like which tasks should you do and accept and which ones you shouldn't. I actually think I'm probably not very good in that I still very struggle very much thinking about prioritizing and what is it that I should take and what is it that I should pass on and it's a huge challenge because so many things seem so interesting and there's only 24 hours in a day

Sandrine: 34:06

so what is your strategy? Cause looking at your CV, you've been involved in a lot of translational work, you've set up companies, you've been involved in such a diverse type of activities. So how did you go about deciding, okay, yes, I'll sit on this committee, or yes, I'll get involved with this company.

Milica: 34:25

wasn't a strategic approach, unfortunately. It was I would say a little bit of brute force and a lot of stamina. And sleepless nights. I don't know how to describe it differently. It was just, I think I got excited about Ideas and, and, and things and doing things and then I just try to get it done and so what I'm trying now to be a little bit more thoughtful about what I get involved with and I would say maybe one thing that could slightly slightly kind of check in guide what you're working on. Obviously, you know, there are three areas of activity that we have as professors. It would be teaching, research and service, like, let's say, academic administration. And there are different types of service, right? That could be could be organizing conferences, reviewing grants, et cetera. So, By now you should have an idea which of those three you really enjoy the most and which ones you enjoy the least, right? So I think I have some ideas about that. Definitely I enjoy research the most. And so that could guide some of your decisions about what kind of committees and what kind of duties you want to take outside of that. But even if you pick one of them and you say I really want to excel in teaching or in research or in service, then there is so much that you could do within that one area that becomes more, more difficult to decide. And maybe a part of it should be there is always teams and the carrying out certain work, right? So you just want to make sure you're part of the best team, right? That you're really operating at the top of the, of your ability together with people who are top in their area and at the top of their ability. So that could be one of the ways of looking at it. I'm not saying it's the best way. I definitely haven't figured this out, but it could be, it could be one way to look at it.

Sandrine: 36:21

Do you think that you've changed in the approach that you have of deciding? You know, I do a lot of coaching with academics. And one of the things that comes over and over again is, just having too much on their plates and, this idea of, what do I prioritize, in terms of things that I want to do, the kind of research leader I want to become, what will be expected of me for, you know, for promotion. So making this decision is very, is very hard. So initially people tend to take everything and then you may be become a little bit more discerning.

Milica: 36:53

well, so when I was just starting, when I was an assistant professor, right, I would take literally every opportunity that came my way, and I don't think that's a bad idea because you know, your plate is still not that full. You think it's full, but it's actually not. And all of those opportunities turn into something else, right? That's how you build your visibility. If somebody invites you to give a talk somewhere, an MRS or somewhere, you should go, you should pay your own way and go, right? If somebody invites you to review paper, sometimes I'm a journal editor for multiple journals and I sometimes invite a junior person and they don't want to review a paper. I'm thinking, what are you doing? You know, it's like, why not? And so I think definitely you should be taking a lot that comes your way because in reality not a lot is coming your way when you think about that and you take that every opportunity right because what I usually also I think in this career you're like an air it's an airplane you're either going up or down it's very hard to be at the cruising altitude any career that's what I think at the essence of capitalism, which is the system that we operate in, you're either going up or down. Even you can see that with big companies, they have to constantly struggle to, to go up and to stay at the top, right? So if you, you know, reject something, that somebody invites you to give a talk, your assistant professor, you rejected it, you're not going to be invited the second time, right? So it depends on your career stage. I think. At that career stage, it makes sense to do that. And then, but later on you have to think about what do you prioritize, really. And maybe you can start with those three big areas. And then think about, you know, which way do you want to go. And at a certain time in your career, you also have to start thinking what do you enjoy doing. Because you don't always do things that you enjoy. And I think that's a difference. You have to be a if you're a professional in something, you do things well, regardless if you enjoy them or not, right? You just do things. And so, but then as you're going through a career, you can start thinking, what is it that I really enjoy doing? And I want to take more of those opportunities and less of those that I don't enjoy that much.

Sandrine: 39:16

depending on the institution, the department, you know, the culture of the environment can vary greatly. What do you think, you know, in your own experience, in your institution, have been things that have really supported you in your development as a research leader and what's been really in the way of you basically growing, in the way that you wanted.

Milica: 39:40

If I think about the University of Toronto and its affiliated hospitals, the benefits of that environment are that there are many, many scientists who are outstanding. And, again, it goes back to that idea of the environment. And there are also good core facilities in the city, if you look at you know, seven hospital research institutes plus the university. Technically, if you want to do anything from RNA sequencing to micro fabrication, there are facilities in the city that you can do that. And I think the university and the research institutes have done a good job providing space for those facilities. Obviously, profs, usually scientists, write grants to research funding to bring the equipment in. And so you have people and equipment, which is really Excellent, right? You can find a collaborator pretty much in anything in the city. So that was really good. I think that's actually very rare. I travel a lot and I can't, you don't see that very much. But also at the same time, University of Toronto is one of the oldest universities in Canada. And the sometimes bureaucratic policies and just the way paperwork flows is more reminiscent of those early days of the university in the 1800s than in the 21st century. And so I think the sometimes it's the incredible amount of time that you spend dealing with paperwork that I'm sure there is a way to, to streamline that and to use more modern techniques of communication and, and et cetera, but I think that's one of the great sort of drawbacks of of, of, of the environment just, like, dealing with paperwork is sometimes tremendous amount of time. And it's something that obviously you don't enjoy because you're, like, you're not a scientist so that you can forward email with PDF signatures. So I wish there was a way to, to kind of streamline that part. It would be a lot more efficient, a lot less time spent on our behalf.

Sandrine: 41:56

When you're thinking about what supported you the most in your career, because obviously, you know, once you become a PI, you're responsible for everything. You're dependent on, maybe some of the, administrative practices that may be a pain and, not very efficient, but also the culture of the institution, the way that a head of department relates to, you know, to the staff member. What's been the support that you've received from colleagues or. peers or mentors once you became a PI?

Milica: 42:26

at the University of Toronto Christina Amon was the Dean of Engineering for about 11 or 12 years. There was an extension to her term because of a huge construction project and I couldn't be more fortunate to be there at that time under Christina's leadership and I can only say. the best things about her vision and her leadership and the way she supported my career, right? So if you, because you're going to talk to girls this podcast is aimed at women scientists. I think I was really fortunate to have. Two women support me in my career and development. One of them is Gordana and the other one Christina Amon. And, she was really outstanding in she knew really well everyone in the faculty and which is pretty remarkable because there are so many professors. And she was very instrumental in creating opportunities for me, I think for many other people as well in terms of not just nominating us for awards, but for me, for example, there was a call for time protection to protect your time from teaching so that you can do some bigger research initiatives. So I applied for this call that she, she set this up. I haven't seen it come. through again and I applied and I got it and I was able to start all of the organ on a chip effort during that time that I had time protection and so, that was really great. And she was also supportive of craft which is the organ on chip center really early, one of the first supporters. So together, I think being at U of T under in engineering under her leadership made a huge difference for my career.

Sandrine: 44:24

So what do you think is your role now that you are very eminent, successful professor? How do you kind of carry on that work within the role that you have so that, you know, women and others, are able to succeed in in research?

Milica: 44:41

Yeah. So I think maybe also the trainees would be the best people to say that. So so what I try to do is really give them an opportunity to publish well, right? So that's the main driver, right? That's what's going to get you the interview, either in industry or in academia, you have to publish well. And there are certain things about project management that the PI can really help with making sure that you're publishing well. And sometimes that means also I'm pushing you to do things right fast, because if it takes a long time, then it's just, The story may not be relevant anymore or it's just your training will be too long, right? People will look at it and they'll say, well, why did it take you seven years for PhD or 10 years? Or like, we just cannot have that. And and so unless there was COVID, right? I think there are people who were impacted by COVID, but in general, you're not supposed to have such a long timeline. So that means that I might be like pushing you to get stuff done. And also. The effective part is that I can also help with is in pairing people like to work together on different projects. And so what I usually also I would ask people to write a review paper. Because that also helps you polish your writing. It. You will have a reference, another reference on your, on your cv. And if you write a good review paper also it'll be cited so it helps with your citation record. So when you come work with me, I will not just ask you to write, like, work on a research paper. I will also make sure you're. work on a review paper. And when I was younger, right, they would review, like, my superiors would review me, and they would say, oh, you're writing too many review papers. I would say, so what? So what, what's the problem with that? Because really, I think it's the combination, good combination of reviews and research papers helps, because reviews are a good way to learn how to write.

Sandrine: 46:51

One of the things that you said that I like to pick on is this idea of pushing because there's been lots and lots of reports about, the mental health issues with PhD researchers and so on. And I was running a workshop last week with some researchers in Portugal and some new PIs and many of them say, well, with some of my PhD students, it's very hard because. I'm trying to motivate them, but, you know, many of them don't necessarily, want to do what I've suggested. And, you know, how much is too pushy? How much, do you need to push? And How do you balance that with, the, raised awareness that mental health issues have, but how do you yourself find a way of really challenging people, but in a way that doesn't feel too pushy.

Milica: 47:41

Well, obviously I'm not, I'm no expert on mental health and I think everything I say, you know, should be taken with a grain of salt. basically I, obviously over the years, right, had people with mental health issues in the lab with time and sometimes depending on most often it's. Things that are percolating, and a lot of them during COVID, a lot of them, actually most of it was during COVID, right, most of it, and sometimes the best solution is really just to take a break, don't, take a break from your PhD or your master's, and we certainly had that happen, people would take a break and, you know, get better, and a lot of it is happening during COVID, where people experience isolation, etc. Also, when people come back, some of them, you know, some of them decided they're just not going to do science. Some of them came back and they're extremely, extremely productive. Extremely, more than anybody you can think of. So, you know, that tells you take a break, get, get a treatment and reassess your goals. Reassess why do you want to do this? And is this what's causing you the mental health and anxiety? Or is this Is it something else that in your life is is causing the, you know, the problems of how you're feeling? But the key, I think, is really to get professional help and assess accordingly.

Sandrine: 49:18

But in a way, from what you said, actually getting people to take a break and not necessarily at the point where people are really not in a good state, but in a way of promoting a research culture where people don't work 24 hours, seven days a week as a way of actually having the headspace to you know, to think and to have a more balanced life.

Milica: 49:40

Yeah. You take a break. You just take a break and get your treatment and then, you continue if needed when you come back to, to, to get treatment. And As I mentioned, like, examples like that, where people come back and they're extremely, extremely productive, a lot more than what you can imagine of of others, right? Sometimes also, you know, people go through phases and When, if they're faced with making a decision, for example, sometimes people have a hard time making a decision and that causes a lot of anxiety and as they're going through different career stages you know, a decision about a job or which way they could, they should, they should go, you get, you get a lot of anxiety sometimes and then they, you can really see their mental health is affected and they're very nervous around other people and triggering other people. So that's something you're trying to, to avoid. But sometimes if you understand where they're coming from and what is causing this behavior, that can really help.

Sandrine: 50:46

I like to ask you a final question about what gives you joy in research?

Milica: 50:52

Well, it's a nice paper. And like when I see I, to this day, you know, I published a lot of papers, but to this day when you see a paper published, not because it's on my like CV as a line, but you see this study, now it's all like perfect. It fell into place all of these years of work and we Finally get it. We know how it works, or there is a new device, new technology. And when you see this nice paper written, and the language is perfect and really nice, I actually get, I get very happy about that. So I don't know. That's how I can prioritize. Do I want to write the paper or do I want to do something else? I always pick the paper, even to the detriment of some other tasks that are really burning. like some administrative task. And that's, that's maybe a little bit of something that I, as an individual, have to figure out how to balance better.

Sandrine: 51:50

Well, you've got your priorities, priorities in order. And

Milica: 51:53

I know what's a priority. I would just write papers all the time. I would never forward any email with the signature to anywhere.

Sandrine: 52:00

Thank you very much. It's been really a pleasure talking to you. Really appreciate you giving us this time. Thank you.

Milica: 52:07

you. Thanks. Bye bye.