INTERVIEW WITH DR. F. PETER GUENGERICH:
What made you decide upon a career in science? What has been the most rewarding experience so far?
I don’t think there was a single event that did it. I had a very agrarian background; my father was
a farmer who emigrated from Germany as a boy. I do remember enjoying chemistry in grade school and
definitely in high school. Organic chemistry fascinated me as a senior in high school and in the college
sophomore course. My love of biochemistry really developed during a summer research project with
Professor Harry Broquist, between my sophomore and junior years of college. I suppose I had seen a
career in some type of science before then, but after that summer I knew I had to be a biochemist and
never looked back. Even today, I have not lost the thrill of doing experiments myself (i.e. real lab work).
To me, science is not science unless you work in a field where you can observe, hypothesize, experiment,
predict, and report, etc.— the real scientific method.
What has been the most rewarding aspect? Let me first say that I love my career as a professor. I
get to do so many interesting things. I work on things no one has done before, travel to exciting places,
work with smart people, and get involved in a great variety of things I don’t have time to discuss here.
However, if pushed to tell you the most rewarding experience, it has been watching the development and
success of the young people who have trained with me. I had great mentors, and I have tried to be a good
one myself to the > 130 graduate students and postdocs who have worked with me.
In the persistent industry vs. academia debate, and under the current funding scenario, what's your
take on young scientists' career advancement? Are there any specific funding mechanisms that you
would recommend to postdoctoral fellows (such as K99 or K22 grants) and junior faculty?
I am not sure I consider this a debate as such. When I was training I considered industry and
might have wound up there if given a good offer. Later in my career I have been approached twice about
moving to the pharmaceutical industry at a senior level, and I seriously considered one offer. Many of the
people who trained with me work in drug companies, and I have loved my consulting interactions with
industry. It has been very interesting to see how they approach problems and to find some of our own
work applied. While I love the lifestyle I lead as a professor, a key element of being in the pharmaceutical
industry is that you can develop medicines in a way that is not really possible to do in an academic
environment. I don’t think the training for industry vs. academia should be different. Success in either
depends on many of the same things. There are differences, though, in terms of the advantages and what
your own role will be.
In my opinion, many young scientists make career decisions without adequate information or
input. You should not go into a particular job to avoid competition. All good careers are
competitive—science, law, medicine. In our program, we bring in former trainees every year who are
working in industry to help educate our current people about what it is really like. I think I can offer
advice to trainees based on my own experiences, even though I have never worked in industry full time. I
do this routinely within my group.
When I was a postdoc, I was concerned about the “grants game,” too—35 years ago. Today it is
even more competitive. Then the Biochemistry department thought I was a good prospect after two years
of postdoctoral training and took a chance on my development. Today it seems that you almost have to
already have a grant such as an NIH K99 just to get a tenure track position. I will say the start-up
packages are much bigger now, though. All in all I am not sure that the attrition rate for junior faculty
has changed much.
A K99 or similar award is great. One of my groups, Dr. Robert Eoff has one and has just accepted
a faculty position. This was a big help in getting interviews and consideration. However, the K99 awards
are very competitive and given to the best postdocs, so you already have to show an outstanding record to
compete.
Based on your experience, what qualities / skills should young scientists acquire to succeed?
When asked questions like this, I usually answer that faculties (and industrial companies) are
looking for smart people who work hard. Everyone wants people who can solve their problems. It’s that
simple. That’s what I look for in grad students and postdocs, too.
Let me elaborate, though, and touch on some more specific points. Of course, you need to have a
certain basic level of intelligence and solid didactic training in the relevant area. You must be able to find
information on a problem (this scene has changed, but the concept has not). You need to focus on what
you do but also extend your knowledge—go to seminars, read broadly, pay attention to other projects in
your lab.
Communication skills are extremely important—both oral and written. Use every chance you
can to give a talk and improve. Writing is extremely important. I can’t say I was that good early in my
career (I had hated English and avoided foreign languages) but my postdoctoral mentor, Professor Coon,
was real stickler on that. I thought he hated everything I tried to write. Many years later he told me he
thought that my papers were well written, and eventually I became an Associate Editor at The Journal of
Biological Chemistry. I seem to be Professor Coon now with my students. If English is not your native
language, you will have to work even harder to develop.
Hard work is very important although, to be honest, my opinion is that most people have
opinions about how hard they will work and their priorities by the time they enter your lab. You will
find that most of the first 40 hours of a week are spent just keeping up, and the extra time is how you
really get important things done.
You need to be really good at scientific techniques you use but also realize, in the big picture,
that these will change. Many of the ones we use today did not even exit when I was a postdoc. Know
the concepts of the techniques. If you only know techniques you will only be a technician.
Above all, never lose the enthusiasm you first had for scientific discovery and
experimentation. This will carry you through the tough spots and make the efforts all worth while.
In your opinion, what are the new frontiers in chemistry in cancer research?
That is a hard question—there are many things. Indeed, we need to know more in every aspect
of cancer research, including the chemistry. Here are a few thoughts:
(i) Target validation in drug discovery. This, of course, requires teamwork with biologists, but chemistry
is a part.
(ii) Related to (i) is the utilization of genomics, personalized medicine, etc. to better tailor therapy to the
specific tumor. There are barriers to the implementation of personalized medicine but I see cancer as
where this will first develop, because of the seriousness and the lack of concern about the added cost.
(iii) Development of better biomarkers. This area involves analytical chemistry (especially
mass spectrometry) and is relevant to several areas, including therapy, drug development, and even
epidemiology.
(iv) Structural biology. What we have learned from structures of proteins is really amazing,
ranging from potential therapeutic targets (e.g. rational design) to mechanisms of mutagenesis, one of
my own interests.
There are only a few, and others will have their own ideas. Having said this, the real trick is not
to do what everyone else is but to see what that is important that they are not doing. Professor Paul
Talalay told me he preached this to young people, and if you look at many successful people you will see
examples. You don’t need to get on the bandwagon; you need to find something important and have the
skill set and vision to develop it.
BIOGRAPHY:
Dr. Guengerich received a B.S. from the University of Illinois (Agricultural Sci., 1970) and Ph.D. from
Vanderbilt University (Biochemistry, 1973). He was a Research Fellow at the University Michigan
Medical School from 1973-1975. In 1975, he joined the Department of Biochemistry at Vanderbilt
University and has been a Professor there since 1983. He is currently the Harry P. Broquist Professor and
Director of the Center in Molecular Toxicology. In 2009, he received the AACR Award for Outstanding
Research in Cancer Research.
F. Peter Guengerich, Ph. D. Harry Pearson Broquist Professor of Biochemistry Director, Center in
Molecular Toxicology Vanderbilt University School of Medicine 638 Robinson Research Building 2200
Pierce Avenue Nashville, Tennessee 37232-0146 Telephone: (615) 322-2261 FAX: (615) 322-3141
E-mail: f.guengerich@vanderbilt.edu