INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Q: Tell us a little bit about yourself and the work you're currently doing at Upstate. 

​

After my PhD, I obtained a postdoc at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, and I was there for eighteen years from postdoc through associate professor. Then in 2017, I moved to SUNY Upstate Medical University to the Center for Vision Research, the CVR. I've been here eight years now, and my lab is focused on scarring in the eye, specifically the anterior segment (the cornea)  and also on glaucoma. Also, we started a company DUB Therapeutics in 2022 based on the scarring and fibrosis work. 

​

Q: Can you tell us a little bit about your path to research? When did you know that you wanted to become a PI, and when did you know that you wanted to pursue a career in ophthalmology?

​

I first became interested in cell biology during my senior year of high school in AP Bio—it was the one subject I could see myself doing every day. After college, I worked as a research technician for two years to confirm that I truly enjoyed lab work, and I did—much more than the lab classes in college, actually. That experience solidified my decision to pursue graduate school.

​

I loved working in the lab, and I know everyone complains, but I really like it. I did a five-year postdoc at Mount Sinai, which I consider one of the best phases in a scientific career—free from coursework and dissertation pressure, but deeply engaged in research, publishing, grant writing, and attending conferences. It’s an ideal time to focus intensely before the responsibilities of a faculty position begin.

People often ask how to choose between medical school and graduate school, but I see them as fundamentally different paths. The personality type and the skill sets are very different between medical school and graduate school. I was always very interested in the why. I also felt like the energy that it took to interface with people, as you have to do in medicine -the idea of seeing patients all day, seemed exhausting. I also highly value the independence research offers. Of course, being your “own boss” comes with risk—especially in academic settings where you often fund your own salary—but if you have a personality that can tolerate risk,  the autonomy is worth it.

​

Also, when I was making career decisions, the landscape was very different. There were far fewer options—biotech startups, diverse career paths in research, investment, patent law, and the like were either nonexistent or largely unknown. It was essentially a binary choice between academia and working for a large pharmaceutical company, which wasn’t particularly research-focused. Today, you have access to a much broader and more dynamic range of opportunities across industries. So, going back thirty years, what would I have done? I’m not sure, but, I'm very happy with the road that I chose for myself personally. 

 

Q: Could you touch a little bit on your path to science in general, but in terms of ophthalmology as a field, and how you ended up in visual sciences, could you elaborate on that?

​

When I moved to New York, I interviewed at four labs—three in vision science. I chose vision science because, as someone married to an artist and deeply appreciative of the visual world, I felt drawn to research that enhances quality of life. Vision loss is a profound disability, and I was more motivated to improve people’s daily lives than to focus solely on life-or-death diseases. The eye is fascinating.  (My kid’s middle names are Photon and Pixel). 

​

I ultimately chose a smaller, more supportive lab environment over the high-profile, competitive labs I also considered. Many of those larger labs fostered a cutthroat culture—postdocs competing on the same projects, racing for authorship. That wasn’t the environment I wanted. This decision also aligned with personal considerations. I was in my late twenties, thinking about starting a family. It’s critical—especially for women in STEM—to choose a lab that supports your broader life goals, not just your research goals. If a lab demands 100-hour work week and has no tolerance for work-life balance, it may not be the right place for someone planning to have kids. My advice: talk to people in the lab. If you sense a toxic culture or the PI won’t let you speak to lab members privately, that’s a red flag. Find a lab where the environment suits both your professional and personal goals.

I chose to work with Dr. Sandra Masur at Mount Sinai, a highly respected leader in promoting women in science. She was a strong mentor who supported my career development and family life. Thanks to her, I learned not only how to conduct strong science but also how to write, network, and navigate academia—skills essential to long-term success. My earlier mentor, Dr. Wally Whitehart at the University of Kentucky, also played a key role in shaping my scientific foundation. The mentors you choose can truly shape your career. Choose wisely!

​

Q: What do you feel are the biggest challenges for women in STEM in general? And if you had one challenge that you had in your career path, how did you deal with it?

​

Honestly, I haven’t faced significant challenges as a woman in science, and that’s largely thanks to the trailblazers who came before me and the strong mentors I’ve had. I also have what some might call “sharp elbows,” so I’ve never shied away from asserting myself.

Science is inherently competitive, and it’s important to find an environment that aligns with your personality and goals. Some people thrive in research-intensive roles, others in teaching-focused positions—both are valuable of course but very different career paths. For me, I've always prioritized research and working in fun and supportive labs, and I've modeled my own lab after those experiences. I work hard, and I expect the same from my team, but I also prioritize their well-being—just as my mentors did for me.

​

In my experience, the most challenging transition in academic science is moving from postdoc to assistant professor (for anyone). It’s a steep learning curve. You're suddenly responsible for managing people, budgets, and multiple projects, often without formal training. It's a bit like bringing home a baby for the first time—you're in charge, but no one’s told you how to do the job!  That’s why environment matters. I’m now at the Center for Vision Research (CVR), which is uniquely collaborative and supportive. I actually moved here because of that culture. I’m very intentional about seeking out environments that foster happiness and productivity—and I encourage others to do the same. A positive workplace can make all the difference in your success and well-being.

 

Q: Do you have any advice, you know, for any sort of aspiring scientists, and women or anyone in STEM on how they can sort of seek out mentorship, and quality mentors like you have? 

​

As a graduate student and postdoc, you’re surrounded by opportunities to meet people—through seminars, guest speakers, departmental lunches—but it can feel like a chore. You’re busy, you’ve got experiments running, and honestly, I used to avoid these events. But my mentors impressed on me how crucial these interactions are. They taught me that every conversation has the potential to open doors. That mindset completely changed my career.

​

What I realized is that attending those lunches or seminars isn’t about making an unforgettable impression—it’s about exposing yourself to different people, research styles, and ideas. Over time, you start to recognize what kind of science excites you, what kind of lab culture suits you, and who you might want to work with. And when it comes time to find a postdoc, you have this mental Rolodex of researchers you've encountered. Reaching out is as simple as saying, “Dr. X, we met at lunch after your seminar. I enjoyed your talk. I’m graduating soon and would love to talk about postdoc opportunities.”

Networking in science is incredibly powerful—second only to doing good research. As you advance, it becomes even more important. You’ll serve on study sections, become an editor, help organize conferences. You’ll start filling panels, building symposiums, and making decisions that influence who gets visibility. And that’s where real change can happen. You can ensure balance—inviting outstanding scientists and making sure the speaker line-up is inclusive. Once someone is invited and gives a strong talk, it goes on their CV, they get invited again, and the cycle builds. This visibility helps careers, especially for those from underrepresented groups.

​

That influence allows you to support others just as you were supported. I take that responsibility seriously. I’m committed to mentoring, writing letters, helping people find jobs—because that’s how the whole system grows and improves. It’s not just about promoting yourself, it’s about lifting up others as you go. The fun is when everyone is doing well. 

​

Q: What are your biggest strengths, and where do you see your career going in the next ten years? 

​

If I had to name my biggest strengths, I’d say they’re a combination of rigorous science, strong networking, and effective people management. As for where I see myself in the next ten years—that’s still unfolding. One major development is the biotech company (DUB Therapeutics) we’ve started, which we haven’t talked much about yet. It’s something I’m very excited about. We’re developing an anti-fibrotic drug that promotes regenerative healing. The data are very exciting, however, the trajectory of any company still depends on many factors—fundraising, investor interest, and the broader market. That said, we’re aiming to be in human clinical trials with our siRNA therapeutic by 2026. Ideally, I’d love to stay involved in growing the company while also keeping my academic position. If I can find a way to balance both without conflict, that would be the best-case scenario for me. Another possible path is administrative leadership, which is common as people progress in academia. But I’m not sure that’s the direction I want to go—at least not now. I’m still very motivated by the science itself and focused on expanding our research program and growing DUB Tx.

​

Q: What is the advice that you would give the students or women who are starting their career or the STEM career? 

This is something I tell everyone who asks me for advice: when you're at a conference, yes—absolutely go to the 8:00 AM sessions. Be on time, be engaged, do the science. But just as important—are the social events. I know those post-session gatherings can feel like the last thing you want to do after a full day of talks, posters, and networking. You’re tired, you’re drained, and you just want to go to bed. But my advice? Go anyway. That’s often where much of the real science happens—where collaborations begin and where people get to know you outside of the formal setting.

​

Remember, when it comes time for promotions, you need recommendation letters from people outside your university—people who haven’t collaborated with you directly, who you are not on your papers. How do they get to know you and your work? Yes, through your papers and presentations—but also through these informal, personal interactions at conferences. So, do both. Go to the morning sessions and show up for the evening events. You're young, if I can do it, you can do it. You can run on little sleep for a few days—it’s worth it. That’s how you make the most of every minute at a meeting. Push through the tiredness. You never know who you'll meet or what opportunity might come from a casual conversation at a reception or dinner. That’s my advice: take the meetings seriously, both the formal and informal parts. Those connections can truly shape your career.

​

​

​

​

​