“Mom, I even got a lab coat and a micropipette!” My first time at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center campus, I remembered being in awe and excitedly video calling my mom to show her all the cool laboratory equipment that I had just picked up from the campus. To me, my laboratory was in my bedroom, where I spent the past year hunching over my laptop with over 100 tabs open per window (yes I counted, or more specifically, my brother counted for me because he was horrified by my abuse of computer windows and tabs), engineering makeshift incubators with a heating pad, towels, and an icebox, and observing suspicious specimen of fungi found in my backyard. To have the opportunity to join scientists and other students interested in science and visit the modern Fred Hutch campus conducting cutting edge research, I was in awe.
One of the highlights of this program was meeting my mentor group, known as the Rocketeers. In the first week, we played many different icebreaker games and bonded over our love (and hatred) of sushi, The Office, and rotisserie chicken. In the process of creating our group poster, we discussed creative ideas for the poster that got progressively crazier as we considered adding Jeff Bezos’ rocket, immune cell planets, and of course, pictures of us Explorers screaming while our mentor, Jonathan, abandons us in space while flying off in his rocket (thanks Jonathan). With some other activities, we were split into different breakout rooms, so I met many of the other Explorers through those activities.
This was our model for CAR T-cell therapy!
My favorite session from the program was the discussion and seminar on bioethics with Dr. Jeanne Chowning. I’ve always been fascinated by bioethics and the biology of human behavior, and as a person that thrives on discussion, I enjoyed how Dr. Chowning incorporated our ideas and had us discuss our ideas on the subjectivity vs. objectivity of science and ethics. She asked us to rate the objectivity of science on a scale from 1-10 by discussing with our breakout room. I rated the objectivity of science as a 7, as science attempts to collect data in the most objective way possible that would be indisputable by anyone across the world, but the interpretations and prejudices held by people can lead to faulty study design or subjective analyses. These subjective interpretations can lead to devastating consequences, sometimes propelling political action. For example, news articles often exaggerate the importance of genes by stating that they have found a gene that determines intelligence, when in reality, the gene, along with many others, is only associated with intelligence. With misleading studies that claim that there is a gene determining intelligence, this could be used in politics to further propel false ideas as “proof” about a group of people.
After that, Dr. Chowning asked us to rate the objectivity of ethics. This time, the distribution of the scores was much more varied, and I decided on 4. This is because while our idea of ethics is often in order to preserve the survival of our species and ensure peace in a society - for example, murder is considered morally wrong nearly everywhere in all cultures - our idea of ethics is still very much shaped by our culture. Many of the things that I thought were ‘morally wrong’ everywhere actually differed depending on culture. Humans also have the capabilities to process thoughts, emotions, and empathy more than other animals (humans can feel pain and empathy from hearing about something that happened to someone on the other side of the globe, while most animals aren’t capable of that!), so would that mean that humans have a greater moral responsibility because our biology allows us to process more emotions?
In the end, Dr. Chowning discussed that the goal of ethics is to find the best course of action to balance the risks and benefits, while ensuring justice and relationships within communities. She gave the example of vaccine distribution and required vaccinations, and we discussed in our breakout rooms about whether or not it would be fair to require vaccinations for healthcare workers. In previous court cases on required vaccinations, the ruling was that schools could require vaccinations, which I interpreted to be because by using public services, the person is subject to following the terms and conditions of the public service. In the end, we couldn’t decide on whether or not vaccines should be required for healthcare workers, because while it seemed reasonable to have terms and conditions in order to have a job, it doesn’t seem fair to fire healthcare workers for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine.
In addition to the main session every morning, I also attended every optional session that I could that was held in the afternoon. I’m really glad that I did, because there were so many interesting sessions that I learned a lot from. My favorite session was the one with Dr. Mary Grace Katusiime, an HIV researcher at the National Cancer Institute. I was so impressed by her resilience as she faced so many struggles in her journey to pursue her career in research. In particular, she told us about how she had to take a leap of faith when she had to move to a new city without the guarantee of a job or a place to stay in order to pursue her Master’s degree. To start out with the struggles that she faced and end up as a researcher at the National Cancer Institute, that was truly inspirational. Dr. Katusiime was also a wonderful speaker, and she also asked us to discuss the struggles that we’ve faced in exploring careers, which allowed us to learn more about each other. Finally, she talked about her research in HIV. In HIV, there are dormant cells that contain HIV but aren’t detectable by HIV treatments, so she works on studying and detecting those dormant cells. As a postdoctoral researcher, she said that she may be branching out her research interests, but she was able to combine her interests and talents to study HIV!
When I first applied for the Explorers program, one of the activities I was most excited for were the labs and demonstrations, and given my excitement at getting a micropipette, that was definitely my favorite lab! One of the mentors, Jamie, taught us how to read and use the micropipette, which I got the hang of very quickly. There is a range stated on the micropipette, and the numbers on the side of the micropipette that can be changed with a dial have a different number place value according to the range of the micropipette. We used the micropipette to dispense small amounts of colored liquid on a piece of Parafilm ‘M’ in order to create a color wheel, ranging from 10 to 20 microliters of liquid. I had lots of fun creating the color wheel, so I decided to create more pipette art with my micropipette. My first creation was a pipette duck, which took three attempts. When I tried using a felt tip pen to trace the drawing, the color bled, so I used a gel pen instead to trace the duck. The duck was fun to make, so my next creation was a pipette caterpillar, which had a variety of colors. Okay, one last drawing. My last creation was a pipette apple, which was tricky to make the leaf because the Parafilm ‘M’ only allowed for round dots, but I fixed the leaf with the gel pen.
One of my personal interests is in antibiotic resistance and oncology, so when I came across Dr. Catherine Liu’s work, I was fascinated by how she was able to balance the importance of preventing infections in cancer patients with the dangers of antibiotic resistance. At Fred Hutch, Dr. Liu is the director of antimicrobial stewardship where she ensures that antibiotics are used properly to prevent antibiotic resistance. From 1950 to 1960, half of all the commonly used antibiotics were discovered during this time period, and since then, no new classes of antibiotics have been developed since 1987 while resistance to colistin, a last-resort antibiotic, was discovered in 2014. Because of this, proper antibiotic use is critical to preventing antibiotic resistance, especially in cancer patients who have weakened immune systems. To illustrate, the three most common treatments for cancer - chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery - all weaken the immune system, as surgery and chemotherapy give bacteria the opportunity to enter the body through surgical incisions and central lines, while radiation and chemotherapy kills the beneficial bacteria that protect the body against other pathogens. In particular, blood stem cell transplant patients are particularly susceptible to infections because the transplantation process involves getting rid of the cancerous immune system and replacing it with a healthy immune system. But in this in-between period, the patient’s immune system is essentially defenseless against all pathogens, which means that normally microorganisms that are harmless can cause serious damage as the immune system isn’t there to regulate the microbiome. Antibiotics play a critical role in preventing a hostile pathogen takeover during cancer treatments where the patient’s immune system is severely weakened, but in our current state, we may not be able to harness the power of antibiotics for long. In a study on the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and Hospital in 1970, it was found that the single leading cause of death for cancer patients was infection, while it was a contributing factor to death in 68% of patients. Today, infection in cancer and other immunocompromised patients is still a critical issue as we begin seeing more and more antibiotic resistant pathogens arise.
However, a big contributor to the rise of antibiotic resistance is the overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can kill a wide variety of bacteria, compared to narrow-spectrum antibiotics, which are targeted towards a more specific strain of bacteria. When bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, this can lead to resistance as even a single bacterium surviving the antibiotic treatment will now be able to reproduce and give rise to more bacteria with the genes to escape the antibiotic. Using antibiotics isn’t harmless either, as another aspect studied by Dr. Liu is the damage that antibiotics can cause, from killing beneficial bacteria to allow harmful pathogens to spread, to potentially increasing the risk for colorectal cancers, as well as interfering with immunotherapy treatments.
Within the short two weeks in this program, I’ve met so many cool and interesting students and scientists, and learned so much new information - most notably, how to use a micropipette (yes, I can’t get over my micropipette!). I’ve really enjoyed all of the discussions and sessions that we had, whether about pathways into science, imposter syndrome, or CAR T-cell Therapy, all of which I’m incredibly grateful to have had this opportunity to participate in. I’ve also had so much fun getting to know my mentor group, so this program has definitely been a highlight of my summer this year!
Works Cited:
Engel, M. (2017). Antimicrobial stewardship preserves a ‘shared resource’ against drug resistance. Retrieved August 13th, 2021 from https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2017/05/antimicrobial-stewardship-preserves-a-shared-resource-against-drug-resistance.html
Young, R. (1979). What Is So Wrong with Killing People? Philosophy, 54(210), 515-528. Retrieved August 13, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751044
Davies J. (2006). Where have All the Antibiotics Gone?. The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 17(5), 287–290. https://doi.org/10.1155/2006/707296
Ambrus, J. L., Ambrus, C. M., Mink, I. B., & Pickren, J. W. (1975). Causes of death in cancer patients. Journal of medicine, 6(1), 61–64.
Comments