When I
pictured scientists designing experiments before coming to MIT, I always
pictured several people using their vast wealth of knowledge on unfathomably
complex systems to deduce that certain things must be true, and that only then
would they proceed to run an experiment to verify that they were correct. Over
the last two years, that misconception has gradually been lifted from my eyes,
especially as of late through my experiences in my UROP at the Koch Institute
and 20.109.
I
UROP for the Langer lab, which deals primarily in directed delivery of siRNA,
with a few projects that I am aware of straying just slightly from this
research focus. The experiment that the graduate student under whom I work
entrusted me with involves attempting to deliver RNA oligonucleotides into
cells by simply attaching cholesterol to them and hoping that the RNA will fuse
with the cell membrane and enter the cell. The idea that a solution the ongoing
problem in RNA delivery could be so simple sounded and continues to sound too
good to be true to me, and this must have come across in my tone of voice to my
supervisor as he said, “It’s probably not going to work, but no one else is
doing this and we have to try it. Welcome to academia.” Exposure to this
mindset of approaching experiments and research in general taught me that
sometimes if you can figure out methods that don’t work, it can still
contribute to your field and move the scientific community a step closer to
solving the problem.
I
applied this way of thinking in the project proposal that Jessie Blumenfeld and
I recently presented. Our project revolved around randomly mutating the NPC1
receptor, which is strongly implicated in Ebolavirus infection, to find a
mutation which resisted Ebola binding to it but allowed the receptor to retain
its normal function. If the project were successful, it would tell us that
there are parts of NPC1 that are crucial for function and parts of it that are
only there to help Ebola infect the host, and where these parts of the protein
are. In having to consider what value the project would have if it were
unsuccessful, I came to realize that even if we found that among all of our
random mutations, none of them were able to produce functional,
Ebola-resistance NPC1 receptors, we would learn that the key to curing or
immunizing against Ebola does not lie in genetic alteration of the NPC1
receptor, which would save everyone else a lot of time.
I
consider this perspective a valuable new part of my tool belt as a biological
engineer, and I am eager to continue to mature my intuition on creating
valuable experiments.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.