Stephen Gaeta – Better Know A Scientist

Welcome to the first installment of an interview series called Better Know A Scientist (index). Stephen is in the Weill Cornell / Rockefeller / Sloan-Kettering Tri-Institutional MD-PhD program and is a member of David Christini’s Cardiac Electrodynamics Lab.

Explain to the readers what you research?
I’m currently working towards my thesis in David Christini’s Cardiac Electrodynamics laboratory at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, where I use a combination of mathematical modeling and more traditional experimental work to research the mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmias.  Specifically, I am currently working to probe the underlying cause of a specific electrical rhythm disturbance, known as “alternans”.  Alternans is a precursor to potentially fatal arrhythmias including ventricular fibrillation, a major cause of death worldwide.  Understanding its genesis and dynamics will allow more insightful research into means of controlling its formation and progression.  Alternans could be controlled through pharmacological means, or through more effective implantable devices.  My research could contribute to advances in either of these approaches.

What led you to your current position?
Starting in this lab was a fairly big departure from my previous work.  As an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin– Madison, I studied molecular biology and neuroscience, working primarily in a neuroscience laboratory.  The brain has always been my scientific passion, and– for better or worse– until recently i have dedicated most of my work and energies solely into this field.  Following graduation, I began here at the Weill Cornell / Rockefeller / Sloan-Kettering Tri-Institutional MD-PhD program, where I am now nearing the end of my third year.  In the first two years of this program, students complete the first half of medical school, and rotate through multiple labs of their choosing before deciding upon a thesis laboratory.  With the exception of my current lab (which I have declared for my thesis), all of my rotations were in neuroscience labs.  I was drawn to this departure by the power of computational research to answer a different kind of question than is possible in more traditional laboratories, and by the prospect of gaining expertise in computational research, which is becoming an increasingly important and powerful technique in biological research.  Though I retain my passion for the study of the brain, I could not be happier with my decision for this phase of my training.

What did you want to do when you were growing up?
Looking back, I can’t identify a particular job I looked towards, and in a way I find that telling.  I’ve always had diverse interests, and relished learning anything and everything available to me. Deciding to complete a dual degree program has allowed me continue to leave as many doors open as possible for my future, and continue on a path towards an uncertain, but promising future.

What do you enjoy most about your work?
In the right graduate school environment, learning is not only encouraged, but is essential.  My lab is an amazing forum for scientific discussion and education, and I find this both personally satisfying as well as motivational.

What is the most challenging aspect?
As I think any researcher can tell you, science can be a harsh mistress.  Research has been a continuous lesson in perseverance, but fortunately the successes (even the modest ones of my experience) far outweigh the failures.

What’s on the horizon in your line of work?
As I mentioned, computational research is an increasingly powerful and essential tool in research, and I believe as it continues to mature it will become mainstream in more and more fields of research.

Any advice for students interested in your field and science in general?
I have a great deal of advice for students interested in MD-PhD programs, too much to include in a brief interview.  For those interested in science in general, my advice is not to pigeon-hole yourself too early on.  It’s impossible to know if you’re interested in a field until you’ve been properly exposed to it, and I think it’s important to gain a diversity of experience before honing in strongly on one area in particular.  Even if your experience with an area leads you away from it, there are always lessons and skills that you can carry with you from any scientific situation.

Many thanks go out to Stephen. Stay tuned to learn more about his research and for future installments of Better Know A Scientist (index).

——
Posted by Tim Roth, author of the political blog Think Anew and Act Anew